Winograd v. Clear Lake City Water Authority
| Decision Date | 28 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. A14-82-489CV,A14-82-489CV |
| Citation | 654 S.W.2d 862 |
| Parties | Dr. Eugene WINOGRAD, Trustee, Appellant, v. CLEAR LAKE CITY WATER AUTHORITY, et al., Appellees. (14th Dist.) |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Charles W. Kelly, Ross, Griggs & Harrison, Houston, for appellant.
Jeffrey W. Hurt, Chris E. Ryman, Leonard, Koehn, Rose & Hurt, Bellaire, for appellees.
Before J. CURTISS BROWN, C.J., and DRAUGHN and ELLIS, JJ.
Dr. Eugene Winograd (Winograd or appellant) appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Clear Lake City Water Authority, Lee Holley, Lawrence A. Otto, Jr., David T. Riley, Robert T. Savely and James C. Smith (Water Authority or appellees). In five points of error, Winograd charges the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. We reverse.
On or about October 5, 1976, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Water Authority, a representative of the owner of a certain sixty-five acre tract of land appeared before the then Board of Directors and requested water, sewer and drainage service to the tract. At that time the Board was also informed that appellant was negotiating to purchase the entire sixty-five acre tract with the intent of erecting apartments and low-rise office buildings on the tract. The Board subsequently "agreed" to provide such service to the property.
In reliance on the Board's action, appellant purchased the property and constructed two apartment complexes on a portion of the tract. In accordance with its "agreement," the Water Authority provided water, sewer and drainage service to that portion of the tract. Appellant also installed pipelines, lift stations, and other equipment necessary for the receipt and provision of water, sewer and drainage service to the remainder of the tract.
In December, 1978, appellant again appeared before a regularly scheduled meeting of the then Board of Directors and requested water, sewer and drainage service for a separate eight acre tract; he also informed the Board that his plans for development of the remainder of the sixty-five acre tract did not call for the use of water, sewer and drainage service until after April, 1979. The Board granted the request for service to the eight acre tract and allegedly reaffirmed its prior "commitment" to provide water, sewer and drainage service to the entire sixty-five acre tract.
In November, 1979, appellant once more appeared at a regularly scheduled meeting of the then Board of Directors and requested water, sewer and drainage service to the remainder of the sixty-five acre tract. The request was refused on the ground that appellant had "traded" his right to service to the remainder of the tract when he requested and received water, sewer and drainage service to the separate eight acre tract. This action followed.
As causes of action, appellant alleged the Water Authority breached its "commitment" by refusing to provide water, sewer and drainage service to the remainder of the sixty-five acre tract, that such refusal was arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory, and that such refusal deprived him of a vested property right without due process of law and violated his right to equal protection under law. Appellant sought $10,500,000.00 in damages; he also sought to compel provision of water, sewer and drainage service to the remainder of the sixty-five acre tract and to enjoin the receipt of such services by other named property owners until such time as appellant's tract was furnished with adequate water, sewer and drainage service. The Water Authority filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that appellant's causes of action were based on an invalid agreement. Based on the pleadings, the trial court granted the motion.
Because of our disposition of the case, we will address only appellant's fifth point of error wherein he contends the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on the pleadings.
Whether pleadings fail to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winograd v. Clear Lake City Water Authority
...The summary judgment was overturned on appeal by the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. Winograd v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 654 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.). On July 25, 1988, the case went to trial, where Winograd developed two main theories of recover......
-
Jampole v. Matthews
...for the trial judge to grant summary judgment. The court relied on Herring and Winograd v. Clear Lake City Water Authority, 654 S.W.2d 862, 863 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.). However, in such circumstances, Herring and Winograd stated in dicta that dismissal was p......
-
Withrow v. State Farm Lloyds
...the absence of a right of action or create an insurmountable barrier to recovery. Winograd v. Clear Lake City Water Auth., 654 S.W.2d 862, 863 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Pleadings may be used as summary judgment evidence when they contain statements rising to t......
-
Meisler v. Bankers Capital Corp.
...be granted if an amendment to the pleadings would render the movant's position insupportable still is valid. See Winograd v. Clear Lake City Water Authority, 654 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, no writ). Read together, these cases state that if a written motion, answer or oth......