Court Opinion

ID: 9763640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:51:02.339053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:47.199422
License: Public Domain

COUNTISS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the opinion of the court. It correctly analyzes and resolves the points of error under existing Texas law. If, however, the definition of “family” as used in a restrictive covenant were an open question, I would reverse this case under the second point of error.
We are obligated to follow the definition of “family” that is stated in Southampton Civic Club v. Couch, 159 Tex. 464, 322 S.W.2d 516 (1958). Although that definition is imprecise at best, it clearly does not encompass the living arrangement in question here. The definition is, however, unrealistic and unduly restrictive. Certainly a family structured in the traditional sense is a desirable societal arrangement that promotes stability and imparts sound values, but I think it is wrong to conclude that it is the only societal arrangement entitled to be recognized as a family. The reasons for a broader definition are adequately stated in Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equality & Reform, 431 U.S. 816, 843, 97 S.Ct. 2094, 2109, 53 L.Ed.2d 14 (1977); Crowley v. Knapp, 94 Wis.2d 421, 288 N.W.2d 815 (Wis. 1980); Berger v. State, 71 N.J. 206, 364 A.2d 993 (1976); City of White Plains v. Ferraioli, 357 N.Y.S.2d 449, 34 N.Y.2d 300, 313 N.E.2d 756 (1974); and Developments— The Family, 93 Harv.L.R. 1156, 1218, 1270-83 (1980), and need not be repeated here.
Consistent with the foregoing authorities, I would prefer to define “family” as a stable housekeeping unit of two or more persons who are emotionally attached to each other and share a relationship that emulates traditional family values, promotes mutual protection, support, happiness, physical well-being and intellectual growth and is not in violation of the penal laws. Under that definition, the housemother and her three charges in this case would be permitted to remain in the dwelling in question.
The appellees .in this case are justifiably concerned about maintenance of the integrity of their neighborhood. It seems to me, however, that the neighborhood is in no more danger from the definition I suggest than from the Southampton Civic Club definition, under which one or more parents, an unlimited number of children, servants and collateral kin and an undetermined number of lodgers or boarders could reside in a single dwelling.
For the foregoing reasons I concur in the opinion of the court, but would reach a different result if we were not obligated to follow the Southampton Civic Club case.