Court Opinion

ID: 9755400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:37:07.947444+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:06.931515
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Justice GRANT.
I strongly dissent from the majority decision allowing the homeowner’s association to accumulate unassessed tax increases in direct violation of the covenants on the property. Section 204.010(a)(16) of the Texas Property Code is a provision allowing increases, but Section 204.010(a) conditions all such increases on the following language: “Unless otherwise provided by the restrictions_” Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 204.010 (Vernon Supp.2002). The provisions of the restrictive covenants (Section 4) in this case clearly provides otherwise.
The provision includes the following language “except that if any such increase shall cause the annual assessment to be greater than the aforesaid $120.00 plus the rise, if any, of the Consumer Price Index as published by the United States Department of Labor for the preceding month of July; or more than One Hundred Ten (110%) percent of the amount assessed in the preceding calendar year, whichever is greater, then shall such an increase require the vote of two-thirds (2/3) of each class of members of the Association who are voting in person or by proxy, at a meeting duly called for that purpose.”
This restriction does more than just allow an annual increase up to the maximum without a vote of the membership, it specifically limits that increase to a percentage of the increase “assessed in the preceding calendar year.” Furthermore, the provision specifically provides that if the percentage is greater than the percentage of the increase assessed in the preceding year by a certain percentage, then two-thirds of each class of members of the association must vote for such an increase. There was not a two-thirds vote for such an increase.
Allowing the accumulation in spite of this provision is to defy and ignore the legislative mandate wMch allows such accumulation only in the event it is not otherwise provided by the restrictions.
*177I do not believe such interpretation was the intent of the Legislature, those agreeing to and accepting the restrictions, and the plain language of the statute and the restrictions.