Second Court of Appeals

Summaries of Civil Opinions and Published Criminal Opinions Issued - Week of May 23, 2016.

NOTE: Summaries are prepared by the court's staff attorneys and law clerks for public information only and reflect his or her interpretation alone of the facts and legal issues. The summaries are not part of the court's opinion in the case and should not be cited to, quoted, or relied upon as the opinion of the court.

Links to full text of opinions (PDF version) can be accessed by clicking the cause number.

FLCT, Ltd. v. City of Frisco, No. 02-14-00335-CV (May 26, 2016) Livingston, C.J., joined by Walker and Sudderth, JJ.).

Held: The trial court did not err by granting the City’s plea to the jurisdiction as to Appellant landowners’ claims that the City’s December 2012 zoning ordinance amendment is void for lack of notice to individual property owners under section 211.007(c) of the local government code because the zoning ordinance amendment did not effect a change in zoning “classification.” As to landowners’ remaining declaratory judgment claims based on chapter 245 of the local government code, and their regulatory takings claim, the trial court erred by granting the plea to the jurisdiction. Landowners’ declaratory judgment claims are not pre-empted by the alcoholic beverage code, nor do they fall outside the scope of chapter 245, as pleaded; thus, the City is not immune from suit as to these claims. Likewise, landowners pleaded a valid takings claim from which the City is not immune from suit.

Savering v. City of Mansfield, No. 02-15-00034-CV, (May 26, 2016) (op. on reh’g) (Sudderth, J., joined by Gardner, J.; Meier, J., dissents with opinion).

Held:  The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellants’ amended application for a temporary injunction when it had the discretion to believe or disbelieve any of the parties’ conflicting evidence and from which evidence it had the discretion to determine that Appellants did not make the clear and compelling presentation of the extreme necessity or hardship required to impose the mandatory injunction requested by Appellants or the related, tangential prohibitive injunctions that they sought. Further, Appellants have no standing for their trespass claim, which relies on ownership of the lots at issue by their homeowners’ association (HOA). The record shows that the HOA did not exist when the developer filed the declaration that the HOA “will hold” record fee simple title to the “Common Properties.” Assuming that the declaration attempted to convey the lots at issue to the HOA, a conveyance cannot be made to a nonexistent legal entity.

Dissent:  The majority misidentifies the type of injunctive relief sought by Appellants, erroneously concludes that the HOA was incapable of owning the R2 lots when the Declaration was filed, and misconstrues a Declaration provision that is no impediment to Appellants’ application for temporary injunctive relief.