## Facts

- In May 1971, Southwest Resorts Company recorded the Baywood Estates subdivision plat and restrictions in Henderson County, Texas, designating Lots 253 and 254 as a common area for a park and boat ramp on Cedar Creek Reservoir.
- Deeds used in the subdivision included a covenant stating that grantees agreed to pay an individual assessment of $10 per year “for the maintenance of parks and ramp area in said Baywood Estates.”
- In the summer of 1974, with the developer’s assistance, Baywood Estates Property Owners Association, Inc. (POA) was incorporated as a nonprofit corporation; one stated corporate purpose was maintaining the park and boat ramp area.
- The developer conveyed Lots 253 and 254 (the park and ramp) to the POA.
- From 1974 forward, the POA continuously maintained the park and boat ramp for the benefit of subdivision property owners.
- In November 2008, four lot owners sued the POA for declaratory relief, contending the POA had no authority to collect the $10 assessment, no authority to govern or control the park and ramp, and no right to exclude owners from use of the common area.
- The owners argued, among other things, that (1) the plat operated as a public dedication of the park and ramp and (2) there was no enforceable agreement authorizing the POA to collect assessments from them.
- The POA counterclaimed for unpaid assessments.
- Both sides filed traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment. Although some deeds containing the $10 covenant were submitted, the summary-judgment record did not establish whether all subdivision lots (or which lots) were subject to that covenant.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the owners and declared, among other things, that the POA was not a mandatory-membership association, had no authority to govern the subdivision or the park and ramp, had no authority to enforce dues or the $10 assessment, and could not exclude owners from using the park and ramp whether or not they paid maintenance assessments.
- The POA appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court err by granting the lot owners’ traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment and entering declarations that the POA lacked authority to govern or control the park and boat ramp and lacked authority to enforce the $10 annual assessment?
2. Did the summary-judgment record conclusively establish, or show no evidence raising a fact issue, that the assessment covenant was unenforceable or inapplicable to the owners and that the POA could not recover past-due assessments?

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the trial court’s summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The owners, as summary-judgment movants on their declaratory claims, did not carry their burden to conclusively establish that the POA lacked authority regarding the park and ramp or that payment for maintenance was purely optional.
- The record contained evidence that the POA was formed to maintain the park and ramp, that the developer conveyed the common-area lots to the POA, and that the POA had maintained the facilities for decades—evidence inconsistent with a declaration that the POA had no authority over the park and ramp as a matter of law.
- The owners’ public-dedication theory did not warrant summary judgment on this record because the evidence did not conclusively show a dedication and acceptance that eliminated the POA’s ownership or management rights in light of the later conveyance of Lots 253 and 254 to the POA.
- The presence of the $10 assessment covenant in some deeds, combined with the incomplete deed record (no proof about whether all lots were or were not burdened), at least raised a fact issue about the scope and enforceability of any assessment obligation; broad declarations barring enforcement were improper at the summary-judgment stage.
- Under no-evidence standards, the deed covenant language and evidence of the POA’s role and ownership/maintenance history constituted more than a scintilla of evidence supporting the POA’s position and counterclaim, so no-evidence judgment against the POA was improper.

## Legal Principles

- Declaratory judgments granted by summary judgment are reviewed under the same standards as other summary judgments, and appellate review is de novo.
- Traditional summary judgment is proper only when the movant shows there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- No-evidence summary judgment requires the nonmovant to produce evidence raising a genuine fact issue on the challenged elements; more than a scintilla of evidence defeats the motion.
- When both sides move for summary judgment, each motion must stand on its own, and the appellate court considers the entire summary-judgment record to determine whether either party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Dedication generally requires the landowner’s intent to set apart land for public use and acceptance by or on behalf of the public; a movant relying on dedication must establish the elements as a matter of law to obtain summary judgment.
- A summary-judgment record that includes some deeds with an assessment covenant but does not establish whether and to whom the covenant applies does not support a declaration eliminating assessment enforcement across the subdivision as a matter of law.
- Evidence that a developer conveyed the common-area lots to a POA and that the POA has long maintained the common facilities can create fact questions that prevent summary declarations stripping the POA of authority over those facilities.

## Conclusion

Because the summary-judgment evidence did not conclusively negate the POA’s claimed rights to own, maintain, and manage the park and boat ramp, and because the incomplete deed record left fact questions about the reach and enforceability of the $10 annual maintenance covenant, the court of appeals reversed the declaratory summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.


Baywood Estates Property Owners Association v. Caolo, 392 S.W.3d 776 (2012)