ETC Katy Pipeline, LTD v. McCormick Pipeline Corridor, LLC--Appeal from 82nd District Court of Robertson County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 10th District Court of Appeals » 2008 » ETC Katy Pipeline, LTD v. McCormick Pipeline Corridor, LLC--Appeal from 82nd District Court of Robertson County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 10-08-00252-CV

Case Date: 12/31/2008

Plaintiff: Vortt Exploration Company, Inc.

Defendant: EOG Resources, Inc.; Jan-Lo Operating Inc.; Douglas S. King Associated Permit Agents; Tammy Cupit;

Preview:Stevan Schroeder and Debra Patrick Schroeder v.
Rancho Escondido Community Improvement
Association--Appeal from 410th District Court of
Montgomery County
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
NO. 09-07-217 CV
STEVAN SCHROEDER AND DEBRA PATRICK SCHROEDER,
Appellants
V.
RANCHO ESCONDIDO COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION,
Appellee
On Appeal from the 410th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 06-09-09190-CV
OPINION
Stevan Schroeder and Debra Patrick Schroeder filed a suit for a declaratory judgment that the Rancho Escondido
Community Improvement Association cannot impose a requirement of a "Harmonious Sight Line" in addition to the
thirty foot building set-back line expressed in the deed restrictions for the Rancho Escondido Subdivision, Section One
in Montgomery County. The Schroeders also sought to enjoin the Rancho Escondido Community Improvement
Association from amending the deed restrictions to impose new conditions that the Schroeders allege selectively affect
them. Holding that no justiciable controversy was presented, the trial court granted summary judgment for the
Association. On appeal, the Schroeders contend the case is ripe for adjudication and that the Association should be
enjoined from amending the deed restrictions. Because we agree that the specific declaratory judgment sought by the
Schroeders is not ripe for adjudication, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
Ripeness is a threshold issue that implicates subject matter jurisdiction. Patterson v. Planned Parenthood of Houston &
Southeast Tex., Inc., 971 S.W.2d 439, 442 (Tex. 1998). In determining whether a controversy is ripe for adjudication,
we focus on whether the case involves "uncertain or contingent future events. . . ." Id. (quoting 13A Charles Allen
Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure, 3532.1, at 130 (2d ed. 1984)). Because the courts of this state are not
empowered to give advisory opinions, a case is not ripe "when its resolution depends on contingent or hypothetical
facts, or upon events that have not yet come to pass." Id. at 443.
The Schroeders purchased a lakefront lot in Rancho Escondido Subdivision, Section One, on June 26, 2006. The
subdivision's restrictive covenants provide for architectural control and prohibit the erection of buildings
until the construction plans and specifications and a plot plan showing the location of the structures thereon have been
approved by the Architectural Control Committee as to harmony with existing structures with respect to exterior design
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/9362.html[8/20/2013 7:31:32 PM]

and color[,] with existing structures as to location with respect to topography and finished grade elevation and as to
compliance with minimum construction standards. . .
The building location provisions contained in the use restrictions require the main building to be located at least 30
feet from the rear of the lot.
On appeal, the Schroeders contend they are entitled to a declaratory judgment that the existing deed restrictions do not
require all newly constructed structures to be harmoniously aligned with other structures. The declaration they sought
from the trial court, however, is that amended restrictions "that may restrict the placement of their home or landscaping
based on any horizontal sight line placement be declared void or unenforceable against the Schroeders as lacking in
mutuality of obligation." For relief, the Schroeders asked that the trial court declare that Chapter 201 of the Texas
Property Code requires the Association to circulate a petition to approve any amended deed restrictions and that such a
petition must allow the Schroeders to exercise the option of being excluded from being burdened by the proposed
amended deed restrictions. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 201.006, 201.007 (Vernon 2007). (1) We will not consider on
appeal matters that were not before the trial court. The parties disagree on which statute's procedure would apply to the
adoption of amended restrictions, but they agree that the Association has not amended the restrictive covenants.
Compare Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 201.006, 201.007 with Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 204.005, 204.008 (Vernon 2007).
Whether the deed restrictions will be amended is uncertain, as the record does not reflect the imminent adoption of any
proposed restrictions.
The purpose of a declaratory action is to establish the existing rights, status, or other legal relations between the
parties. Bonham State Bank v. Beadle, 907 S.W.2d 465, 467 (Tex. 1995); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
37.002(b) (Vernon 1997). The Schroeders requested a declaratory judgment on the applicable procedures for amending
the restrictions. That issue will not be ripe for adjudication unless or until the Association acts to amend the
restrictions.
The Schroeders also contend that the Association should be enjoined from amending the deed restrictions in a manner
which is lacking in mutuality as to all homeowners and that unduly burden the few undeveloped lots to the benefit of
the existing owners who did not have to comply with such impediments to the use of their lots. They argue the
ripeness doctrine should not apply to a request for an injunction. We disagree. A trial court cannot grant injunctive
relief based upon a hypothetical or contingent situation that might or might not arise at a later date. Camarena v. Tex.
Employment Comm'n, 754 S.W.2d 149, 151 (Tex. 1988).
We hold the trial court did not err in ruling that the controversy was not ripe for resolution or judicial decision. Finding
no error in the judgment, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
STEVE McKEITHEN
Chief Justice
Submitted on November 15, 2007
Opinion Delivered February 21, 2008
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
1. The Association contends Section 204.005 would apply to any effort to amend the restrictive covenants at issue. See
Tex. Prop. Code Ann. 204.005 (Vernon 2007).
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/9362.html[8/20/2013 7:31:32 PM]

Download 9362.pdf