Rankin v. Covington Oaks Condominium Owners Association, Inc.

Bexar · TX · Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District (San Antonio)

Member win · architectural

What happened

Adjacent condo owners Rankin and Farrer sought association approval for shared-attic insulation/radiant-barrier paint and a dual fire door (December 8, 2002 Improvement Request Forms). The association denied the requests. A jury found arbitrary/capricious/discriminatory denial but the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment and denied fees. On November 23, 2005, the Fourth Court of Appeals reversed, rendered declaratory judgment that the owners could make the requested changes, and remanded for reasonable attorney's fees.

What the court (or agency) held

After a jury found Covington Oaks acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or discriminatorily in denying Rankin's and Farrer's requested attic insulation/radiant-barrier and dual fire-door improvements, the trial court's take-nothing judgment was inconsistent with that verdict. The court of appeals reversed, rendered a declaratory judgment that the owners were entitled to make the changes in their December 8, 2002 Improvement Request Forms, and remanded for reasonable attorney's fees.

Why this matters for members

A jury finding of arbitrary ACC denial should produce declaratory relief matching the verdict—not a take-nothing judgment. Fee remand follows when the owners are the prevailing parties on that declaration.

What the member did

Litigated declaratory relief and obtained a jury finding of arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory denial under Texas Property Code standards.

Questions for the board

Questions for a lawyer

Citation

Rankin v. Covington Oaks Condominium Owners Association, Inc., No. 04-04-00861-CV (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 23, 2005) (mem. op.) (2005-11-23). Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District (San Antonio). Outcome chip: member_win. Flags: unreported. Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/fourth-court-of-appeals/2005/18732.html

_General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law._

Source opinion

General information, not legal advice. Outcomes turn on facts and current law.

Not a law firm. Not legal advice. Confirm this against your documents and your state’s law.