Court Opinion

ID: 9683393
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:27:56.607679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:46.742122
License: Public Domain

AKIN, Justice,
dissenting.
I cannot agree with the majority opinion that the trial court’s finding that appellant knowingly violated the zoning ordinance obviates the necessity of the city to show that serious injury may occur if the structure is not removed by mandatory injunction. Instead, I would adhere to our original opinion. I can see no logical reason to draw a distinction between a case where the property owner unknowingly violates an ordinance and a situation where the owner knows prior to construction that the structure violates the zoning ordinance. Neither can I accept the rationale of the majority, as well as the conclusion of law of the trial court, that because the violation was with knowledge, the court is prevented from balancing the equities and has no choice but to grant the mandatory injunction even upon a showing of a slight technical violation of the ordinance. Thus, the thrust of the ma*176jority opinion is that mere proof of a violation of the ordinance entitles the city to a mandatory injunction if the property owner had knowledge of the violation.
None of the cases cited by the majority stand for the proposition that a city need show only a knowing violation of a building ordinance in order to obtain a mandatory injunction. Indeed, cases cited in the majority opinion concern restrictive covenants, covenants not to compete, and suits by individuals to enforce an ordinance asserting a vested property right, none of which are germane to the question here presented.
In my view, the general rule governing the issuance of a mandatory injunction applies here. Thus, a mandatory injunction compelling the destruction of property should be granted only where serious injury is likely to occur if the injunction is not granted. City of Dallas v. Gaechter, 524 S.W.2d 400, 402 (Tex.Civ.App. — Dallas 1975, writ dism’d); Cabla v. Shockley, 402 S.W.2d 289, 291 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1966, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Nolte Irrigation Co. v. Willis, 180 S.W.2d 451, 455 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1944, writ ref’d w. o. m.). Here, the trial court made no finding that serious injury was likely to occur if the injunction was denied; instead the judge granted the mandatory injunction solely on the ground that Zelios had knowingly violated the side-yard requirement of the zoning ordinance.
The undisputed evidence showed that the roof placed upon the existing nine-foot, solid brick patio walls was an asset to Zelios’ property, as well as to that of adjoining property owners. The uncontradicted evidence showed also that prior to placing the roof atop the patio walls, Zelios was confronted with a serious drainage problem occasioned by water collecting in the patio and entering the interior of Zelios’ condominium. Other owners of condominiums in the same complex, as well as other adjacent property owners, testified that the covering of the patio greatly enhanced the entire neighborhood by eliminating a nuisance and that they preferred the covering to remain. Thus, although the covering of the patio technically violated the city’s zoning ordinance side-yard requirements, it resulted in a benefit to the entire neighborhood. Particularly in a situation such as this, it was incumbent upon the city to show that the violation by Zelios of the side-yard ordinance requirement was likely to result in serious injury. Nolte Irrigation Co. v. Willis, at 455. The city neither pleaded nor attempted to introduce evidence of any such likely dangers. Indeed, although discovery was readily available to the city, no effort was made to develop such evidence if indeed it existed.
Although the city argues that harm to the public welfare must be presumed by the violation of an ordinance, destruction of property cannot be ordered upon mere presumption. Disruption of the city’s zoning scheme does not, in itself, justify relief by mandatory injunction. This is particularly true where, as here, the area in question is in a flux of change from single-family dwellings to apartment houses, condominiums, and townhouses. If the city believed that the roof over the patio so endangered the public welfare as to warrant its removal, it had the duty to present facts showing that such a danger actually existed. Absent such proof, the drastic remedy of mandatory injunction is improper. In City of Amarillo v. Meade, 286 S.W.2d 276, 278 (Tex.Civ.App. — Amarillo 1956, no writ), the court held that in the absence of proof of fire, sanitation, or other public hazard, enforcement of an ordinance requiring a minimum rearyard by mandatory injunction would be denied as arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.
Even though the violation by Zelios was willful, according to the trial court’s finding, this does not, in my view, relieve the city of its burden to show an actual danger. Since the crucial inquiry in a mandatory injunction suit is whether serious injury will be inflicted if relief is withheld, the trial court must base its decision on the effect of the violation on the public welfare. If no harmful effect is shown, the issuance of a mandatory injunction, in cases of a violation of a city ordinance, would result in the destruction of property without any *177corresponding public benefit. In my view, in such a case, the mandatory injunction serves a punitive, rather than a remedial purpose, and should be denied.
This rationale finds support in the opinion of the supreme court in City of Fort Worth v. Johnson, 388 S.W.2d 400, 402 (Tex.1964). In that case, the supreme court stated that “if the evidence is conclusive that a zoning ordinance is arbitrary and unreasonable, generally or as to particular property, it is the duty of the courts to refuse to enforce it.” Thus, the supreme court has recognized that mere violation of an ordinance does not mandate judicial enforcement. Accordingly, I would sustain Zelios’ point of error predicated on this specific ground because, in my view, it is arbitrary and unreasonable for the city to seek destruction of property by mandatory injunction where no public benefit is to be derived nor where no public harm is to be remedied. Without such a showing by the city, I would hold that, as a matter of law, mere violation of a city ordinance is insufficient in itself to justify destruction of property by mandatory injunction. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.