Li v. Pemberton Park Community Association
Houston, Harris · TX · Supreme Court of Texas
MIXED · fines
What happened
After a 2014 hailstorm, Li sealed a stucco crack; the Pemberton Park association later demanded matching exterior paint, closed then reopened the violation, and in 2017 sued for injunction, statutory damages, and fees. Pro se, Li answered and moved for summary judgment arguing selective/unequal enforcement with photo comparators; the trial court still granted the association summary judgment (injunction, $1,000 statutory damages, ~$16.5k fees). The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed, treating her § 202.004(a) theory as unpreserved. On October 1, 2021, the Texas Supreme Court reversed on preservation only and remanded to the court of appeals.
What the court (or agency) held
VERIFY / REMAND — not a final merits win on selective enforcement. The Texas Supreme Court held that pro se owner Li preserved her argument that enforcement was 'arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory' under Tex. Prop. Code § 202.004(a) by arguing selective/unequal enforcement in substance, even without citing the statute by number or using its exact words. The case was remanded for the court of appeals to decide remaining issues (including whether evidence raised a fact issue). This opinion does not declare that the association in fact acted arbitrarily.
Why this matters for members
This result is MIXED — a partial win, not a clean sweep on every claim. Substance can preserve a § 202.004(a) defense: arguing selective/unequal enforcement with comparator facts may be enough even if the statute and magic words are missing, especially for a pro se litigant. The association still must prove discretionary enforcement was not arbitrary on the merits after remand; preservation alone does not void the judgment.
What the member did
Documented comparative non-enforcement against other lots; argued selective enforcement and unequal treatment in summary-judgment papers while largely pro se; later obtained counsel for the petition for review.
What did not work
Trial and intermediate appellate courts treated the selective-enforcement theory as waived for lack of a § 202.004(a) citation—until the Supreme Court reversed on preservation only.
Questions for the board
- When a paint or repair violation is reopened after being marked closed, what written standards explain that change?
- How does the board document that similarly situated lots receive the same follow-up and lawsuit decisions?
- Before seeking injunction and statutory damages, what comparative-enforcement review is done?
Questions for a lawyer
- On this record, does the summary-judgment evidence raise a fact issue under § 202.004(a)?
- What discovery is needed to prove or rebut selective enforcement after a preservation remand?
- How should pro se summary-judgment papers frame selective-enforcement substance without relying on the wrong covenant cite?
Citation
Li v. Pemberton Park Community Association, 631 S.W.3d 701 (Tex. 2021); No. 20-0571 (2021-10-01). Supreme Court of Texas. Outcome chip: MIXED/REMAND. Flags: MIXED, remand. Source: https://600hemphill.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Li-v.-Pemberton-Park.pdf
_General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law._
General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law.