Background
Sandra Flores owns a home in the Inverness Forest subdivision in Harris County, which is subject to deed restrictions dating to 1965 and amended in 2009. The Inverness Forest Residents Civic Club enforces these restrictions and adopted a “Policy Regarding Maintenance” requiring property owners to obtain preapproval from the Architectural Control Committee for alterations including painting, landscaping, and “any and all alterations proposed to the lot and/or residence.”
Beginning in 2020, Inverness sent Flores notices of violations: a new fence lacking preapproval and a barbecue grill and unsightly items stored in public view. Flores disputed the notices, claiming she did not build the fence (her attorney-neighbor did) and that the items did not violate any restrictions. She sued Inverness in 2023, asserting conversion, breach of contract, breach of deed restrictions, and seeking injunctive relief, arguing that Inverness improperly adopted the maintenance policy and improperly enforced deed restrictions.
Both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted Inverness’s motion and denied Flores’s motion. Flores appealed, challenging whether the maintenance policy was valid and whether the enforcement was proper.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment for Inverness. The court held that the Policy Regarding Maintenance was properly adopted under Texas Property Code § 204.010(a)(6), which permits HOAs to regulate property use, maintenance, and appearance unless the regulation directly conflicts with existing deed restrictions. The policy did not conflict with the deed restrictions; rather, it reasonably expanded preapproval requirements to protect neighborhood aesthetics. The court rejected Flores’s argument that a 30-day deemed-approval provision from the deed restrictions should apply to fences, finding that this provision applies only to “buildings” as defined in the deed restrictions, which does not include fences.
Regarding the barbecue grill and unsightly items, the court found these violated Article 8 of the deed restrictions, which prohibits “noxious or offensive trade, activity or noise” and anything that “may become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood,” as well as Article 16.A, which requires maintaining structures and improvements in a “clean, safe and sightly condition.” The court rejected Flores’s argument that she could not be liable because she did not personally build the fence, holding that deed restrictions and HOA policies apply to property condition, not to who caused the condition.
Key Takeaways
- HOAs can adopt regulatory policies that reasonably expand on deed restrictions, provided the new policies do not directly conflict with original restrictions.
- A homeowner’s liability for property condition violations is based on the property itself, not on whether the homeowner personally caused the violation.
- Courts presume HOA enforcement decisions reasonable under Texas Property Code § 202.004(a) unless proven arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory.
- Unambiguous restrictive covenants are interpreted according to plain language; disagreement with an interpretation does not render a covenant ambiguous.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly strengthens HOA authority to enforce property standards by permitting HOAs to adopt regulatory policies beyond original deed restrictions. The ruling provides HOAs flexibility to address evolving neighborhood maintenance issues not contemplated when restrictions were drafted decades ago. For homeowners, the decision establishes a high bar for challenging HOA enforcement: rules can only be defeated if they directly conflict with original deed restrictions, not merely because they expand on them.
The opinion also clarifies covenant interpretation doctrine. By strictly construing provisions like the 30-day deemed approval (limiting it to “buildings” rather than extending it to fences), the court prevents homeowners from using loose language to circumvent enforcement. This reflects Texas’s principle that restrictive covenants should be enforced as written and gives property owners clear notice of what obligations they assume when they purchase property subject to HOA restrictions.