Lexis Nexis - Case Brief

Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Law School Case Brief

Homsey v. Univ. Gardens Racquet Club - 730 S.W.2d 763 (Tex. App. 1987)

Rule:

A chief consideration of a covenant "touching and concerning the land" is whether it is so related to the land as to enhance its value and confer benefit upon it. 

Facts:

The restrictive covenant required the appellant Homsey, as the owner of a lot in the University Garden's addition, to pay dues and assessments to appellee University Gardens Racquet Club. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the racquet club for dues and assessments based on the covenants and restrictions. The lot owner sought review, contending that the restrictive covenant was not reasonable, was not pursuant to a general scheme to benefit the land and was not for the exclusive use and benefit of the landowners. Specifically, he emphasized the absence of the essential requirement that a covenant must touch or concern the land. 

Issue:

Were recorded restrictive covenants requiring plaintiff lot owner to pay dues and assessments for a racquet club enforceable?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The Court held that appellant lot owner was liable to appellee racquet club under the terms of the restrictive covenant because the terms were reasonable and valid pursuant to a general scheme to benefit the land. Next, the Court found that evidence of other violations of restrictive covenants was not extensive enough to constitute an abandonment or waiver of the general scheme of restrictions. Lastly, the Court held that the non-exclusivity of the club was not a material factor in determining whether the landowners were benefited. The Court found that landowners benefited because they did not have to pay an initiation fee charged to non-landowners. 

Access the full text case Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class