Opinion ID: 2456428
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Court of Appeals Action and Holding

Text: All parties appealed the judgment. The Hornsby devisees and Pollock interests maintained that the restrictions should not have been implied on the retained property, and the Evanses and other property owners complained that the trial court should have also implied the restrictions against the hilltop and should have allowed them attorneys' fees. The court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment that plaintiffs take nothing, holding that none of the retained lots were restricted. The court of appeals reasoned that for the implied reciprocal negative easement doctrine to apply, the original grantors had to have intended that the entire subdivision be similarly restricted. Relying primarily on the language from Saccomanno v. Farb, 492 S.W.2d 709, 713 (Tex.Civ.App.Waco 1973, writ ref'd n.r.e.), requiring proof evidencing a scheme or intention that the entire tract should be similarly treated, the court wrote, It is the scope of the plan which defeats application of the doctrine. 793 S.W.2d at 21.