J. Kelly Gray; Rooster Springs, LP; and Rooster Springs Stable, LP, Appellants, v. The Key Ranch At The Polo Club Home Owners Association, Inc., Appellee.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, Austin.
Filed: January 12, 2010.
The Key Ranch subdivision is a gated residential community. The appeals court upheld the trial court decision finding for the appellee that certain easements purportedly granted by one appellant to another appellant were invalid and unenforceable. As to the interpretation of the easements, the court said, “We review the trial court’s interpretation of the Declaration and the restrictive covenants contained therein by applying general rules of contract construction. See Pilarcik v. Emmons, 966 S.W.2d 474, 478 (Tex. 1998). Whether restrictive covenants are ambiguous is a question of law. Id. In construing a restrictive covenant, our primary task is to determine the drafter’s intent and to liberally construe the language of the restrictions to give effect to their purposes and intent and to harmonize all of the provisions so that none are rendered meaningless… Courts must examine the covenants as a whole in light of the circumstances present when the parties entered the agreement.” Because the court held the provisions in the Declaration of easement unambiguously express a certain intent, it stated in a footnote that it “may not look to extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent”.
Decision text available at