Court Opinion

ID: 9671477
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:37:16.054661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:10.174504
License: Public Domain

DUNCAN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In my view, the restrictive covenant at issue does not unambiguously prohibit renting single-family homes on a tract within the Chisum Subdivision for living purposes, whether temporary or permanent. At the very least, I would hold the covenant ambiguous and therefore resolve “[a]ll doubts ... in favor of the free and unrestricted use of the premises,” as mandated by the Supreme Court of Texas in Wilmoth v. Wilcox, 734 S.W.2d 656, 657 (Tex.1987).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
As the majority notes, the sole issue to be determined at a temporary injunction hearing is whether the status quo should be preserved pending a trial on the merits. To make this determination, the trial court is required to determine “the last peaceable status quo,” that is “the status which existed at the time of the filing of the ... suit.” City of Lubbock v. Stubbs, 160 Tex. 111, 327 S.W.2d 411, 415 (1959). In Stubbs, the City of Lubbock sought to enjoin Stubbs from using his land as a mobile trailer home park. At the time suit was filed, Stubbs had placed 48 mobile trader homes on his property. The parties conceded, and the court held, that the injunction would not apply to these 48 mobile trader homes because they existed at the time suit was filed. Id. 327 S.W.2d at 415.
In this case, the status quo at the time suit was filed was that the appedants were renting the house to third parties. As a preliminary matter, I fail to see how a temporary injunction precluding the use existing at the time suit was filed preserves the status quo.
Restrictive Covenant
The rules for construing restrictive covenants were set forth by the Supreme Court of Texas a decade ago. Our essential “task is to determine the intent of the framers of the restrictive covenants.” Wilmoth, 734 S.W.2d at 658. But in doing so, we must be mindful that “covenants restricting the free use of land are not favored by the courts,” and they wdl be enforced only “when confined to a lawful purpose and are clearly worded.” Id. at 657. Accordingly, “[a]d doubts must be resolved in favor of the free and unrestricted use of the premises, and the restrictive clause must be construed strictly against the party seeking to enforce it.” Id. “The words used in the restriction, and the restriction as a whole, may not be enlarged, extended, stretched or changed by construction.” Id. Rather, the words must be given their “commonly accepted meaning” at the time the covenant was written. Id. at 657-58.1
As noted by the majority, the covenant at issue states that “[a]ll tracts within the Chi-sum’s subdivision shad be used solely for residential, camping or picnicing [sic] purposes. Motel[sJ, tourist courts, and trailer parks shall be deemed to be a business use.” The use sought to be enjoined is renting a residence to third parties. Our task, therefore, is two-fold. First, we must determine whether restricting the use of a tract to “residential purposes” precludes renting a single-family residence. Second, we must determine whether renting a single-famdy residence is to be deemed a “business purpose,” along with “motel[s], tourist courts, and trader parks.”

Residential Purposes

As the majority impdcitly recognizes, “[t]he terms ‘residence purposes,’ and ‘residences’ require the use of property for dving *819purposes as distinguished from uses for business or commercial purposes.” MacDonald v. Painter, 441 S.W.2d 179, 182 (Tex.1969). In MacDonald, the court held that “the terms, without other limiting words, do not prohibit duplex living units.” Id. Indeed, this court has specifically held that restricting lot usage to “residential purposes” does not preclude the construction of a four-unit apartment house, “so long as the building is used exclusively for residential purposes.” Cuiper v. Wolf, 242 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1951, no writ).
From these cases, it is apparent that restricting the use of tracts in the Chisum Subdivision to “residential purposes” precludes using a tract for business or commercial purposes, such as a machine shop, commercial child care facility, florist shop, beauty shop, or an animal clinic;2 it does not preclude renting one’s home to third parties so long as the third parties use the tract for living purposes. To hold otherwise would violate not only the rule of strict construction but also the rule prohibiting this court from “enlarging], extend[ing], stretch[ing] or chang[ing]” the words of the covenant through judicial construction.

Motels, Tourist Courts, Trailer Parks

The majority holds, however, that the second sentence in the covenant precludes renting one’s home to third parties, because the framers intended this sentence to preclude “transient-type housing.” As even the majority recognizes, however, this label at most applies to motels and tourist courts, not trader parks — which are generally used as permanent, rather than transient, multi-family housing. It is thus not only patently illogical, but contrary to the rule of strict construction, to construe the second sentence as precluding “transient-type housing.”
What then is the reach of the second sentence? Plainly, the second sentence of the covenant does not preclude using a tract for financial gain; if that were the framers’ intent, they surely would have said so or at least included apartment houses, duplexes, and the incidental renting of a room as prohibited uses. In my view, therefore, the second sentence appears to have been intended to reach the use that has historically been permitted by a “residential purposes” covenant — multi-family use, whether permanent or temporary. Construing the second sentence of the covenant in this fashion is both logical and consistent with the rule of strict construction. Under this construction, the covenant would not preclude renting a residence to a third party for living purposes. At the very least, however, the covenant is ambiguous, and we must construe it in favor of the freer and less restrictive use of the land and against the party seeking enforcement. In either event, renting one’s home to a third party for living purposes, whether temporarily or permanently, would not be precluded by the covenant.
Conclusion
The restrictive covenant at issue nowhere speaks to renting a residence to a third party. To the contrary, “residential purposes” is plainly defined by Texas case law to require that land be used for living purposes, whether single or multi-family, temporary or permanent, and to preclude business uses. And the tie binding “motel[s], tourist courts, and trailer parks” is not transient housing, but multi-family housing, both temporary and permanent. I would therefore hold that the restrictive covenant at issue does not preclude renting a single-family residence to a third party for living purposes, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

. Although the Texas Legislature has mandated that “[a] restrictive covenant shall be liberally construed to give effect to its purposes and intents,” Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 202.003(a) (Vernon 1995), this mandate does not conflict with the common law rule that covenants are to be construed "either to favor the free and unrestricted use of land or to strictly construe it against the party seeking to enforce it.” Crispin v. Paragon Homes, Inc., 888 S.W.2d 78, 81 n. 1 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied) (citing Wilmoth v. Wilcox, 734 S.W.2d 656, 657 (Tex.1987)); see also Ashcreek Homeowner’s Ass’n v. Smith, 902 S.W.2d 586, 588-89 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ) (following Crispin ).

. Hicks v. Loveless, 714 S.W.2d 30 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1986, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Mills v. Kubena, 685 S.W.2d 395 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Fowler v. Brown, 535 S.W.2d 46 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1976, no writ); Vaccaro v. Rougeou, 397 S.W.2d 501 (Tex.Civ.App.—Houston 1965, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Brite v. Gray, 377 S.W.2d 223 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1964, no writ).