Court Opinion

ID: 9857413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 14:33:53.074933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:18.998980
License: Public Domain

HALL, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority’s holdings that there has not been a waiver or an abandonment of the residential-only restriction in question in the Hua-co Heights Addition. However, it is my view that the findings made by the jury in its answers to the first three special issues are supported by proof and require judgment for the plaintiff releasing her lots from the restriction. These findings are (1) plaintiff’s property is no longer reasonably suitable for residential purposes, (2) the use of plaintiff’s property for non-residential purposes would not materially affect the other owners in the Addition in the enjoyment of their property for residential purposes, and (3) removing the’ restriction from plaintiff’s property would not harm the owners wishing to preserve the residential character of the subdivision.
Summarized, the evidence shows that the restriction in question became effective in 1916; that since plaintiff purchased her res*191idence in Huaco Heights Addition in 1944, Jefferson Street, the residential street which bordered the Addition and her lots on the South, has become a part of Waco Drive, which is a divided thoroughfare with multi-lanes for traffic on both sides of the median; that Waco Drive is a part of the main traffic artery between the eastern and western boundaries of McLennan County and carries a “terrific flow” of day and night traffic; that virtually all of the property adjoining both sides of Waco Drive in the area in question (including the adjoining lots in Block 7 of the Addition from 35th to 36th Streets upon which housing and parking facilities for Educator’s Credit Union are located) is devoted to commercial use, mostly professional offices; that because of the traffic on Waco Drive and the resulting noise, plaintiff’s property is no longer suitable for residential use by her or anyone and is not saleable for residential use, but is suited for and saleable for commercial use; that plaintiff is a 75-year-old widow and wants to sell her property and move into the home of her daughter in another city; that the Educator’s Credit Union, which is a non-residential use in the Addition adjoining Waco Drive one block from plaintiff’s lots, has not adversely affected the residential character and use of lots off Waco Drive; that the use of plaintiff’s lots for commercial purposes will not harm or interfere with the residential character and use of the interior lots in the Addition, but will actually benefit the residential nature of the interior lots by shielding them from Waco Drive; that the release of plaintiff’s lots from the residential-only restriction will not precipitate a tenpin effect of commercial uses off Waco Drive and into the interior lots because, for several reasons shown by the proof, the interior of the Addition is simply not suited to commercial use; that the defendants were selected at random from throughout the Addition (one from each block); and that all but one of the defendants favor releasing the plaintiff’s lots from the restriction.
In Cowling v. Colligan, 158 Tex. 458, 312 S.W.2d 943 (1958), a judgment removing a residential-only restriction against a particular lot on a finding that the lot was “no longer suitable for exclusively residential purposes” was reversed by the Supreme Court because there was not an express finding (and because the appellate record which did not contain a statement of facts would not support an implied finding) that the removal of the restriction “would not prove harmful to [the owners] who wish to preserve the residential character of the subdivision.” The Court recognized that a court of equity may grant relief from a residential-only restriction “because there has been such a change of conditions in the restricted area or surrounding it that it is no longer possible to secure in a substantial degree the benefits sought to be realized through the covenant.” However, the Court said a particular lot may not be released from the restriction on the sole ground that a change of conditions has rendered the lot unsuitable for residential purposes, because “the equities favoring the particular owner is only one facet of the judicial inquiry”; that “the judgment must arise out of a balancing of equities or of relative hardships” between the particular owner and the other lot owners in the subdivision who wish to preserve the residential character of the area; and that where the disproportion between harm to the particular owner and benefit to the other owners is the sole reason for releasing the individual lot, the disproportion of harm must be one of “considerable magnitude.” 312 S.W.2d 946.
In our case, the jury has found in answers to the first three issues (1) harm to the plaintiff if the restriction is continued on her lots, and (2) no harm to the other lot owners in the Addition if the restriction is removed from plaintiff’s lots (i. e., no benefit to the others if the restriction is not removed). The proof supports these findings. To deny the plaintiff the relief she seeks is to effectively render her lots unsaleable and thereby destroy their value, but without benefit to the other owners in the Addition. This is surely a “disproportion [between harm and benefit] of considerable magnitude.”
*192I would reverse the judgment and render judgment for plaintiff on the verdict removing the restriction from only her lots.