Bryant v. Lake Highlands Development Co. of Texas, Inc., 18434

Decision Date25 June 1981
Docket NumberNo. 18434,18434
PartiesRichard T. BRYANT, et al., Appellants, v. LAKE HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC., et al., Appellees.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals
OPINION

HUGHES, Justice.

Richard T. Bryant, Macy L. Henry and Lola Mae Ellis (hereinafter referred to collectively as the plaintiffs) have appealed that part of the trial court's judgment which conditioned the permanent injunction granted in their favor upon the execution of a $500,000.00 bond. The plaintiffs also complain of that part of the trial court's judgment which denied their right to enforce certain restrictive covenants as to a number of lots which were purportedly removed from restrictions by amendment of the Declaration of Covenants.

We reform and affirm.

In 1977 the plaintiffs purchased separate improved townhouse lots in the Harbourtown Villas Phase I Subdivision, an addition to the City of Lake Dallas, Texas. The addition was originally platted in 1976 (by Lake Highlands Development Company of Texas, Inc.) into eighty townhouse lots. The lots in the addition were subject to a "Declaration of Covenants & Restrictions" which provided that no building other than single family residence townhouses were to be constructed on the lots. The Declaration also created an owner's association comprised of lot owners, 90% of whom, together with all the first lien holders, could amend the covenants and restrictions of the Declaration. Both the original plat and the Declaration were filed for record at the time the plaintiffs purchased their lots. At the time relevant to this suit, twenty of the eighty lots, including those owned by the plaintiffs, had been improved and sold.

In 1979 the undeveloped sixty lots were replatted so as to accommodate the construction of fourplex units thereon by California-Texas Land Co. which had agreed to purchase the undeveloped sixty lots. In 1980 the owners of seventy-seven of the eighty lots (all of the owners of the developed lots except the three plaintiffs and Lake Highlands, which still owned the sixty undeveloped lots) signed and filed an amendment to the Declaration removing the undeveloped sixty lots from the legal description of lands subject to the original Declaration.

The plaintiffs thereafter filed suit seeking: cancellation of the replat; injunction of Lake Highlands and California-Texas from improving the undeveloped sixty lots in violation of the original plat and/or Declaration; and an injunction of the City of Lake Dallas from providing utilities to the undeveloped sixty lots.

The named defendants answered jointly by a general denial.

Trial without a jury was had and the trial court found:

1. The subdivision replat of the Harbourtown Villas Phase I Addition to the City of Lake Dallas, Texas, adopted by Defendant LAKE HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC., and filed of record in Volume B, Page 51, Map and Plat Records, Denton County, Texas, is invalid and should be cancelled;

2. Defendants LAKE HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY OF TEXAS, INC., AND CALIFORNIA TEXAS LAND COMPANY should be enjoined from constructing or beginning any further improvements in the Harbourtown Villas Phase I Addition which violate the final plat of Harbourtown Villas Phase I Addition as recorded at Volume 12, Page 34, Map and Plat Records, Denton County, Texas; provided however, that the foregoing injunction should not apply to improvements being constructed or to be constructed on Blocks 6, 7 & 16 as shown on the said final plat of Harbourtown Villas Phase I Addition; and provided further that the foregoing injunction should be conditioned upon Plaintiffs being required to execute a bond with the Clerk of the Court with good and sufficient surety or sureties approved and conditioned as required by law, with a reasonable amount for such bond determined to be Five Hundred Thousand and No/100 ($500,000.00) Dollars;

3. Defendant CITY OF LAKE DALLAS, TEXAS should be enjoined from serving or connecting with any public utilities owned, controlled or distributed by the CITY OF LAKE DALLAS any improvements in the Harbourtown Villas Phase I Addition which violate the final plat of Harbourtown Villas Phase I Addition as recorded at Volume 12, Page 34, Map and Plat Records, Denton County, Texas, provided however that the foregoing injunction should not apply to improvements being constructed or to be constructed on Blocks 6, 7 & 16 as shown on the said final plat of the Harbourtown Villas Phase I Addition and should apply only if Plaintiffs file the bond as required in Paragraph 2 above;

4. Plaintiffs are not entitled to enforce by injunction the covenants, conditions and restrictions filed by Declaration in Volume 777, Page 347,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Lakeland Property Owners Ass'n v. Larson
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 1 d3 Fevereiro d3 1984
    ...v. Del Pizzo (1980), 46 Or.App. 153, 611 P.2d 309 (change eliminated past height restrictions); Byrant v. Lake Highlands Development Co. of Texas, Inc. (Tex.Civ.App.1981), 618 S.W.2d 921 (amendment could permit previous single family townhome restriction to be changed to allow the building ......
  • Hughes v. New Life Dev. Corp.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • 19 d1 Novembro d1 2012
    ...that removed certain undeveloped lots from the legal description of lands subject to the declaration. Bryant v. Lake Highlands Dev. Co. of Texas, 618 S.W.2d 921, 922 (Tex.Civ.App.1981). The amendment required a 90% super-majority of the homeowners' association, and it received seventy-seven......
  • Teal Trading & Dev., LP v. Champee Springs Ranches Prop. Owners Ass'n
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 5 d3 Julho d3 2017
    ...were sufficient percentages of votes required by restrictive covenant to pass increase in maintenance fund); Bryant v. Lake Highlands Dev. Co. of Tex., Inc. , 618 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1981, no writ) (recognizing rule announced in Zent , but factually distinguishing it)......
  • French v. Diamond Hill-Jarvis Civic League
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • 5 d4 Fevereiro d4 1987
    ...v. Council of the City of St. Paul, 235 Minn. 56, 50 N.W.2d 81, 83 (1951). A previous case before this court, Bryant v. Lake Highlands Dev. Co. of Texas, 618 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Tex.Civ.App.--Fort Worth 1981, no writ) is distinguishable because in that case there was an intent manifested withi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT