Court Opinion

ID: 9683437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:28:34.958873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:47.837050
License: Public Domain

WILSON, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The homeowners rely primarily on a case I find similar, but distinguishable. In Brown v. Wehner, 610 S.W.2d 168, 169-70 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the homeowner wanted to place three residences on a parcel of land comprising two original lots as designated on the subdivision plat. The restriction in question provided:
4-BUILDING SITES. No building site shall have less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area, or a front width of less than sixty-one (61) feet, and no building may be erected on property having an area or frontage less than these minimum requirements. The side and front line clearances provided in the preceding restriction (that is, clearance from the property lines of the building site) shall be continuously maintained as to all improvements and there shall be no resubdivision or division of lots in such manner as mil impair the minimum side and front line clearance required.
[[Image here]]
7 ... [AJll lots or buildings sites composed of one or more lots in Pine Wood *911Estates, shall be used for single family residential purposes only, and no structure shall be altered, placed, erected, or permitted to remain on any lot (or building site) except one single family residence ....
(Emphasis added.)
This court held that because the plaintiffs additional residences would not impair minimum building site clearances as specified in the restriction, the proposed subdivision of the plaintiffs lots did not violate the terms of the restriction. Id. at 170.
In Brown, the density of homes within the subdivision was controlled by strict requirements on building site width (61 feet) and side and front line clearances. Because the plaintiff was able to meet all these requirements, this Court permitted the plaintiff to subdivide his lots and erect three homes on two lots. The restrictions specifically allowed homes to be built on sites that were 62 feet wide, regardless of the size of the originally platted lots.
However, in this case there is no specific provision for the width of building sites, although there are set back requirements.1 These set back requirements govern the placement of a home on a building site, but do not address the size of the building site itself. That is, nothing in these restrictions governs the density of homes within the neighborhood, except the disputed requirement of one house per platted lot. Because the restriction in Brown specifically allowed building sites that were smaller than the original platted lots, I do not find that it controls the resolution of the present ease.
In MacDonald v. Painter, 441 S.W.2d 179, 180 (Tex.1969), the owners wanted to subdivide them three lots into six lots and then build a duplex on each lot. The restriction at issue provided:
3. All improvements to be erected on said premises shall be built for residence purposes, or for use in connection with residences; and the main residence so erected thereon shall front on John D. McCall Road; the front budding line of the land hereby conveyed shall be not less than 30 feet from the property line of said premises, fronting on John D. McCall Road; and no residence, or any part thereof, and no outbuildings of any kind, shall ever be erected or placed upon the space between said building line and said property line.
Id. at 183 (emphasis added). The court held that the use of the plural term “residences” showed an intent to permit more than a single residence. Id. The court also stated that the term “main residence” suggested more than one residence was permissible. Id.
Again, the language of the restriction in the present case is distinguishable. The clause at issue provides:
Single family dwellings only shall be constructed on lots One (1) through One Hundred Ninety-Four (194) inclusive. Bona fide servant quarters may be attached or separate from the dwelling.
Although the first sentence of the clause contains the plural “single family dwellings,” the very next sentence states that servant quarters may be attached or separate from “the dwelling.” In fact, restriction three also refers to a single dwelling:
The front extremity of the residence shall be built no nearer than forty (40) feet from the front property line ... Outbuildings shall be located to the rear of the residence.
When read as a whole, I believe the restriction contemplates only one single-family dwelling on each of the 194 originally platted *912lots. I find support for this position in Fischer v. Reissig, 143 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Tex.App.—Austin 1940, writ ref'd).
In Fischer, the restriction provided:
The dwelling house, as distinguished from outhouses and servant’s quarters, shall face the street upon which the lot fronts, and no part thereof shall be nearer than 25 feet to the front property line. All other structures shall be in the rear of the dwelling house.
Id. at 130. The court held that even though there was no prohibition against building more than one dwelling house on each lot, the use of the article “the” before “dwelling house” indicated only one such dwelling house should be located on each lot. Id. at 131.
In the restrictions in this case, there are several references to “the dwelling” and “the residence.” In only one instance was the plural used: “Single family dwellings only shall be constructed on Lots One (1) through One Hundred Ninety-Four (194) inclusive.” The use of the plural “dwellings” was necessary to correspond with the plural “lots.”
In addition to the plain construction of the language used in the restriction, testimony about the framer’s intent when the restriction was drafted also compels the conclusion that only one home per platted lot was contemplated. Mr. Billy McAninch, one of the developers of Polly Ranch, drafted the 1973 restrictions after the parties reached an agreement in the Bacon suit. McAninch testified that he specifically referred to the 1973 plat in the restrictions because it represented the size of the lots that the parties had agreed upon in the 1973 settlement. McAn-inch further testified that he envisioned only one home on each of the lots numbered one through 194 on the 1973 plat. He testified that he anticipated 194 homes would be built on 194 lots.
McAninch testified that on a few occasions, Polly Ranch sold portions of lots to adjacent landowners. The effect of these sales was to increase the lot size. In no instance was a home built on a lot smaller than those originally platted. On one occasion half of lot five and half of lot 6 was sold, resulting in a lot equal in size to the original lots. In no case was a home built on a site smaller than the original platted lots.
McAninch testified that by referring to “the dwelling” in the singular in the last line of the restriction, he intended only one house per lot to be built. He testified he used the plural “dwellings” only one time, and he felt it was necessary in that instance to make the sentence grammatically correct. He used the plural “dwellings” to match the plural “lots.”
The majority disregards McAnineh’s testimony by relying on the parol evidence rule, which it argues makes the testimony not only inadmissible, but also of no probative value whatsoever, even if it is admitted without objection. However, in Wilmoth, the Supreme Court instructed us that when interpreting restrictive covenants, it is our task to determine the intent of the framers. Wilmoth, 734 S.W.2d 656, 658. In Wilmoth, the court considered the testimony of the developer of the subdivision in construing a restrictive covenant, even though there was no finding that the covenant was ambiguous. Id. In light of Wilmoth, I believe we should consider McAninch’s testimony to determine the intent of the framers.
The plain language of the restrictions when considered as a whole, and the testimony regarding the framer’s intent, lead me to conclude that the restrictions in this ease impose a requirement of only one home per platted lot.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
We deny appellee Polly Ranch Homeowners Association’s, motion for rehearing.
It is so ORDERED.
WILSON, J., dissents from this ruling.

. Restriction three provides:
The front extremity of the residence shall be built no nearer than forty (40) feet from the front property line. No other building line shall be nearer than fifteen (15) feet to the side property lines or fifteen (15) feet to the rear property line. Outbuildings shall be located to
the rear of the residence. On those lots which border the air strip, the rear building line shall be no nearer the property line than twenty-five (25) feet.
It is undisputed that an additional residence can be placed on each homeowner's lot that meets these set back requirements.