## Facts

- Air Park Estates was a residential subdivision designed for owners who would build both a home and an aircraft hangar with runway access.
- Ivan Harrison acquired a lot in 1969 under a contract for deed containing restrictive covenants, including (a) a provision allowing hangars to be built before homes and (b) a clause permitting covenant modification by a three-fourths vote of lot owners, one vote per lot.
- In 1970, owners sought to amend the “hangar-before-home” restriction; insufficient owners attended the meeting to reach the required threshold.
- A petition was then circulated, and more than three-fourths of the lot owners signed in favor of amending the restriction to require construction of a residence before construction of a hangar.
- The amendment was recorded in 1971, and Harrison received notice.
- In 1974, Harrison submitted plans to build only a hangar; the subdivision’s zoning committee rejected the plans as inconsistent with the amended restriction.
- Harrison began hangar construction without committee approval, prompting the committee to sue and obtain a temporary injunction stopping completion of the hangar.
- Harrison appealed the temporary injunction order.

## Issues

1. Whether the amendment to the deed restrictions was valid when the required three-fourths approval was obtained through a circulated petition rather than a single in-person vote at a meeting.
2. Whether the amended restriction requiring a residence before a hangar was reasonable, within the reserved power to amend, and enforceable in equity against Harrison.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction to prevent completion of the hangar pending trial on the merits.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the temporary injunction.
- The court held the amendment process was valid because the covenants required only a three-fourths vote and did not prescribe a specific voting method; the record showed the requisite owner approval and an opportunity for owner participation.
- The court held the amendment was reasonable and consistent with the subdivision’s general plan because it maintained the basic home-and-hangar scheme while changing only the order of construction.
- Applying abuse-of-discretion review, the court concluded the trial court acted within its discretion in issuing injunctive relief to preserve the status quo while Harrison proceeded in violation of the recorded restriction with notice.

## Legal Principles

- When restrictive covenants reserve a power to amend by a specified percentage of owners and do not mandate a particular voting procedure, an amendment may be adopted through a petition or similar method if the required approval is obtained and owners have an opportunity to participate.
- An amendment that increases restrictiveness may be enforceable if it is not arbitrary, illegal, or contrary to public policy and does not destroy the subdivision’s general development plan.
- Review of a temporary injunction is limited to whether the trial court abused its discretion; a court may enjoin ongoing conduct that plausibly violates facially valid, recorded restrictions to maintain the status quo pending final adjudication.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a temporary injunction halting hangar construction because the subdivision validly amended its covenants by petition to require a residence before a hangar, the amendment was reasonable and consistent with the subdivision’s plan, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in preserving the status quo.


Harrison v. Air Park Estates Zoning Comm., 533 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1976, no writ)