This morning, the Third Court of Appeals issued an opinion in a case involving a Municipal Utility District’s attempts to enforce restrictive covenants which, according to the MUD, the trial court and the Third Court of Appeals, prevented a couple from parking a thirty foot travel trailer at their Anderson Mill home and from building a “trailer-port” to house the trailer. The trial court had entered judgment on behalf of the MUD but had chosen not to award any attorneys’ fees to the MUD; the Third Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on the merits but reversed the refusal to award fees. According to the Court of Appeals, when a MUD brings a restrictive covenant suit under Section 54.237 of the Water Code and prevails, attorneys’ fees must be awarded, and the trial court has no discretion in the matter. The case also discusses the evidentiary standard by which courts of appeals review a jury’s decision on whether or not an enforcing party has waived the right to seek to enforce a restrictive covenant. Cause No. 03-04-00369-CV
Menu
Legal Research
