Court Opinion

ID: 9367556
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 07:10:59.304134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:01.114107
License: Public Domain

DISMISS and Opinion Filed January 27, 2023

                                         S  In The
                               Court of Appeals
                        Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                    No. 05-22-00591-CV

  DOUBLE DIAMOND, INC., DOUBLE DIAMOND-DELAWARE, INC.,
  WHITE BLUFF CLUB CORP., NATIONAL RESORT MANAGEMENT
  GROUP, AND WHITE BLUFF PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION,
                         Appellants
                            V.
       JOHN AND CATHY WALKINSHAW, ET AL., Appellees

                  On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court
                               Dallas County, Texas
                      Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-10333-J

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein
                             Opinion by Justice Goldstein
       This agreed interlocutory appeal was filed pursuant to former Texas Civil

Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(d)1 and Texas Rule of Appellate

   1
     The underlying suit was filed prior to September 1, 2011, making it subject to former section
51.014(d). See Act of May 27, 2005, 79th Leg. R.S., ch. 1051, § 1, 2005 Tex. Gen. Laws 3512,
3513 (applying to lawsuits filed on or after September 1, 2005), amended by Act of May 25, 2011,
82d Leg., ch. 203, § 3.01, 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws 758, 759 (applying to lawsuits filed on or after
September 1, 2011) (current version at TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d)). “Out of
an abundance of caution,” the parties also filed a joint petition for permissive appeal under the
current version of section 51.014(d). On the parties’ motion, we consolidated the permissive
appeal into this appeal.
Procedure 28.2 by all parties to the underlying proceeding–the over 1100 plaintiffs,

who are former or current property owners in the White Bluff Resort (“Property”),

and the defendants, the White Bluff Property Owners Association (“WBPOA”),

Double Diamond-Delaware, Inc., Double Diamond, Inc., White Bluff Corp., and

National Resort Management Group. By this appeal, the parties seek review of the

trial court’s amended partial summary judgment order that determined, in part, that

mandatory fees the WBPOA, a non-profit corporation, collected from the plaintiffs

and used for resort property the WBPOA did not own were not authorized by the

Property’s governing documents,2 section 202.004 of the Texas Property Code,3 and

sections 528 and 23.18 of the Internal Revenue Code and Texas Tax Code,

respectively.4 Because an agreed interlocutory appeal is not permitted unless the

order sought to be appealed involves a controlling question of law as to which a

    2
     The governing documents consist of the WBPOA’s Declaration, Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation,
and Covenants and Restrictions, all of which have been amended “from time to time.”
    3
      Section 202.004 of the Texas Property Code concerns the enforcement of restrictive covenants and
provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n exercise of discretionary authority by a property owners’ association
. . . concerning a restrictive covenant is presumed reasonable unless the court determines by a
preponderance of the evidence that the exercise of discretionary authority was arbitrary, capricious, or
discriminatory.” See TEX. PROP CODE ANN. § 202.004(a).
    4
      Section 528 concerns the taxation of “certain homeowners associations”, see 26 U.S.C. § 528, while
section 23.18 concerns the appraisal of property, such as swimming pools, parking lots, and meeting halls,
owned by a “nonprofit homeowners’ organization” for the benefit and enjoyment of its members, see TEX.
TAX CODE ANN. § 23.18. The definitions of “homeowners association” for purposes of section 528 and
“nonprofit homeowners’ organization” for purposes of section 23.18 are similar. Both require, in relevant
part, that “90 percent or more of the [organization’s] expenditures” be made for the acquisition,
construction, management, maintenance, and care of the organization’s property and that the net earnings
of such organization not inure to the benefit of any individual other than by acquiring, constructing, or
providing management, maintenance, and care of association property or by a rebate of excess membership
dues, fees, or assessments. See 26 U.S.C. § 528(c)(1)(C),(D); TEX. TAX CODE § 23.18(d)(4),(6).
                                                   –2–
substantial ground for difference of opinion exists, and the controlling questions of

law identified in the summary judgment order here are not questions as to which a

substantial ground for difference of opinion exists, we dismiss the appeal for want

of jurisdiction. See Act of May 27, 2005, 79th Leg. R.S., ch. 1051, § 1, 2005 Tex.

Gen. Laws 3512, 3513; TEX. R. APP. P. 28.2; State Fair of Tex. v. Iron Mountain

Info. Mgmt., Inc., 299 S.W.3d 261, 264 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.).

                                           /Bonnie Lee Goldstein/
                                           BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN
                                           JUSTICE

220591F.P05

                                        –3–
                                  S
                           Court of Appeals
                    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

DOUBLE DIAMOND, INC.,                       On Appeal from the 191st Judicial
DOUBLE DIAMOND-                             District Court, Dallas County, Texas
DELAWARE, INC., WHITE BLUFF                 Trial Court Cause No. DC-11-10333-
CLUB CORP., NATIONAL                        J.
RESORT MANAGEMENT                           Opinion delivered by Justice
GROUP, AND WHITE BLUFF                      Goldstein, Justices Molberg and
PROPERTY OWNERS                             Pedersen, III participating.
ASSOCIATION, Appellants

No. 05-22-00591-CV         V.

JOHN AND CATHY
WALKINSHAW, ET AL., Appellees

      In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

Judgment entered January 27, 2023.

                                      –4–