| Purchased lots in 16-yr-old Texas subdivision. After about six years, the homeowners board raised deed restrictions for new homes to be built -- even though neighborhood is mostly built out and majority of existing homes are smaller than what deed restrictions now state new homes must be. New restrictions also state new homes must have 25 windows. Declaration of covenants of original neighborhood appears to give homeowners bd. power to make any changes they want. Covenants were more or less left wide open during development period and then original developers went bankrupt. There were no deed restrictions regarding square footage, etc., originally in covenants. These were added years after, then amended in 1999. I lost earnest money contract on sale of our property to an individual and have been unable to sell property since -- due largely to the fact that buyers do not want to have to build a home bigger than the vast majority of the existing homes. One of four members of architectural board which made square footage recommendations owns largest home in neighborhood and property next to mine. Am suing in small claims court (court date - April 10) for what I have spent on homeowners dues and taxes since lost of sale, plus lost of interest I could have earned on selling price of property.
Questions:
Is there a case law precedent that states deed restriction changes must be "reasonable"?
Where and how do I research case law?
Are deed restrictions enforceable on a subdivision where the developers went bankrupt?
If there is evidence that original developers did not intend to give homeowners board this kind of power, can I claim that this was not their "intent"? Is there a legal definition of intent?
What is standard for claiming "conflict of interest" regarding architectural bd. member's decision making power?
Any guidance would be appreciated!! | 
03-19-2001, 12:53 PM
Linear Mode
