Deed Restrictions


Are We Required To Honor
Our Governing Documents as Recorded
or
An Arbitrary "Policy" That Exists Only in Someone's Thoughts?

The following is an actual exchange between a Texas Property Manager and a concerned homeowner after receiving a notice of a "violation" of the community's deed restrictions. YOU be the judge.

Subject: NOT IN WRITING!
Folks - here's the kind of mentality we're dealing with! Attached is Ms.
Hunter's letter after our visit and my reply. Incredible! - J.T.


Ms. Hunter's (Property Manager) Letter:
16511 DIANA LANE
HOUSTON. TEXAS 77062-5796

March 13, 2000

J. T. Chapman III
15503 Baybrook Drive
Houston, Texas 77062

Re: letter dated 3/7/00

Dear Mr. Chapman:

It was a pleasure to finally meet you this afternoon. Thanks for your
hospitality.

Current policy states all paint must be clean and well maintained with no
bare or peeling areas. The paint on your home would fall under "well
maintained" as it is faded and streaked in some areas. I think you are
reading this policy to just address paint that is bare or peeling. This is
not the case. Well maintained covers other criteria not put in writing,
i.e. faded, mismatched, just as clean covers criteria not put in writing, 
i.e. house wrapped with toilet tissue, etc.

I will pass your comments made today on to the Board. As always, they are
the deciding factor.

Thanks again for listening as well as the input.

Carol Hunter
General Manager, Clear Lake City Community Assn. Inc.


MY (Homeowner) REPLY:
15503 Baybrook Drive
Houston, Texas 77062
March 19, 2000

Carol Hunter, General Manager
Clear Lake City Community Association, Inc.
16511 Diana Lane
Houston, Texas 77062

Ref: Your letter of 1/13/00
          My certified letter of 1/16/00
          Your letter of 2/17/00
          My certified letter of 2/18/00
          Your letter of 2/23/00
          My certified letter of 3/07/00
          Your visit on 3/13/00
          Your letter of 3/13/00

Dear Ms. Hunter:

It was my pleasure to meet you last Monday afternoon, March 13, 2000, when
you stopped by my home to discuss an "apparent" deed restriction violation
on my part. Thank you for following up your visit to my residence with a
letter also dated March 13, 2000.  For your convenience I have attached
that letter for quick reference. I had hoped that our conversation would 
have also successfully cleared up some of my questions prompted by your 
letter of February 23, 2000, but upon reflection, that is not the case.

The response in your March 13th letter, after our very frank and candid
conversation, was rather disappointing and fell short of my expectations.
Instead of providing written criteria above and beyond Policy Statement
409-2 as requested in my letter of March 7, 2000, you provided an
explanation of further subjective "criteria not put in writing".  If
criteria are not in writing, they cannot be enforced. All residents within 
the Association's authority must be presented in writing with all criteria 
that are to be enforced.

If you will recall our conversation, I objected to any criteria for house
painting NOT SPECIFICALLY included in our current deed restrictions, dated
March 19, 1968, and filed March 21, 1968. For 32 years the majority of the
houses and lots in the Clear Lake Community Association have been maintained 
in an above community-standard condition. In fact, property values have not 
declined.  There is a house near to mine that has sold numerous times for an 
amount greater than its previous sale. All the houses around it, including 
mine, have been well maintained since they were built in the late sixties 
and after - not from the Association's actions, but from personal pride in 
self and community.

I also objected to any  "policy statement", "guideline" or any other such
written document approved by the Board to circumvent the LEGAL REQUIREMENT
in the deed restrictions to obtain the consent of the majority of the 
property owners for additions, changes, or revisions to such.

According to the legally filed deed restrictions for Oakbrook West Section
2, Part II, Para.1, Page 4:

"1.  These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding upon
Friendswood and its successors and assigns and all persons claiming under
them and all subsequent property owners of said above described lands, and
any part of same, for a period extending until July 1, 2006, at which time
said covenants shall be extended automatically for successive periods of
ten (10) years each, UNLESS [emphasis added] an instrument signed by a
MAJORITY OF THE THEN OWNERS OF THE LOTS [emphasis added] has been recorded,
agreeing to change said covenants IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OR TO REVOKE THEM 
[emphasis added].....each and all of such restrictive covenants shall be
valid and binding upon the respective grantees."

The latitude in interpreting any deed restriction addition, change, or
revision is apparently extended only around the Board of Trustees table in
the Community Association meeting room.  From public hearings on such, the
Trustees must present their suggested additions, changes, or revisions in
written form through a binding vote to all of "the then owners of the lots" 
for approval or disapproval by the majority.  The covenant cited above is 
very precise and not ambiguous, nor does it have any "gray" areas.

It is my understanding that a restrictive covenant will be enforced by the
Texas courts according to the covenant's terms. If the restrictive covenant 
language is ambiguous, the Texas courts will interpret the covenant language 
in a literal, narrow, and strict interpretation. The intent and the meaning 
of a restrictive covenant are determined at the date the covenant was 
created, not at a later date when some party wants to enforce a different 
interpretation for its own purpose or cause.  The covenant will not be 
changed or broadened by time and circumstances.  Texas courts have been 
consistently strict and literal in the enforcement of restrictive covenants. 
I expect no less of the Clear Lake City Community Association, Inc.  If our 
restrictive covenants are indeed incomplete according to what the CITIZENS, 
not the Board, believe should be the community standard, then they should be
modified by the legal process and not subrogated by policies and guidelines.

I noticed in your letter of March 13th, that you said you would pass on to
the Board of Trustees those items that we had discussed.  However, I did
not see any of those specific items listed in that letter.  

Those items were:

(1)  The proper method to modify the deed restrictions as mentioned above.

(2)  We discussed the Association's "rules and regulations" by which the
residents must abide. The residents cannot be left to the whim or subjective
opinion of any board trustee or a general manager. The elected trustees
and the general manager are only short-term incumbents; however, their
decisions are long lasting and often difficult to overturn or reverse.  
Therefore, the deed restrictions approved by the residents are those "rules 
and regulations", not policies and guidelines approved only by the Board.

(3)  We also discussed that the rules should be a reflection of community
standards and not left to the judgement of a few to create or enforce and
should be made easily available to everyone.

(4)  We talked about how it might be wise to have a committee comprised of
board members and volunteer citizens from each subdivision to propose, if
needed, deed restriction additions, changes or revisions for community
approval to reflect those standards.

You indicated that you would take these the items we discussed back to the
Board of Trustees for their consideration. If I have misinterpreted anything
in our conversation in this characterization, please correct me.

It is truly unfortunate that you did not personally receive or read my
very first certified letter of January 13, 2000.  I stated that I was 
planning to paint my house this year anyway, and your help was not needed 
in making that decision. 
  
I also asked three very simple and reasonable questions:
 
1) What deed restriction of record am I violating?
2) Who says my house needs painting?
3) What are the written criteria used to make that determination?  

It has taken two months to get answers to those questions from you.  Your 
answers to the first two are understandable. Your answer that the criteria 
are "not put in writing" is incredible! I have begun painting my house, just
as planned. The issue is much larger than whether I paint my house.


Thank you,

Original signed:
J.T. Chapman III


cc: Mr. Albert H. Bieser
    Mr. Curtis S. Sitler
    Dr. James Delwood
    Ms. Frances Nussbaum
    Mr. Rigdon Joosten
    Mr. O. H. Stelter Jr.
    Mr. Gregory Countie
    Mr. Jim Harris
    Mr. George Muths, Jr.
    Mr. Farlane MacFarlane
    Ms. Leslie L. Eaton

(Top)

Huntington Village Online
An Online Newsletter For HV Residents

P.O. Box 720735      Houston, Texas 77272-0735
Sponsored Independently by Concerned HV Residents
NOT an Official Huntington Village Community Association SITE
Houston, Texas