A HOMEOPER expanded his garage and his HOA took them to court for $80,000 in damages and legal fees – a judge denied it.
He said the organization’s authority to enforce the law was “irrational” and dismissed the owner’s deed violations.
two
two
In 2016, the Chang family paid to have the garage at their Houston, Texas home retrofitted, prompting a lawsuit from the Garden Oaks Maintenance Organization for deed violations committed in the construction.
Austin Barsalou, the association’s attorney, argued that ensuring certain restrictions are followed strengthens the community.
“Deed restrictions are extremely important for Houston neighborhoods,” he told Houston Chronicle.
“(The group) works hard to enforce them in Garden Oaks. I think you can tell the difference between neighborhoods that do and don’t. This neighborhood is successful, in part, because of that.”
Casey Lambright, the Chang family’s attorney at the time, said the organization’s power should be questioned.
“Can they now take revenge on a neighbor for not mowing their lawn? Are there other deed restrictions at play? The answer is no,” he said.
“How will rights be determined between these parties in the future? Do you have the ability to resolve them long-term? They don’t have the right to impose deed restrictions.”
The association argued that Chang’s garage, being a four-car garage, violated deed restrictions and noted that several attempts at settlement were made before a lawsuit was filed in 2012.
So the HOA sought to have a judge decide to force the family to comply with the deed’s restrictions while covering their legal fees – totaling about $80,000.
Judge Dan Hinde ruled in favor after the jury decided the owner was not guilty, due to the organization’s history of “selective enforcement,” as other owners had made similar changes without notice of violation.
He also denied the organization’s request for $80,000, despite the Changs’ garage being in clear violation of its deed.
Chang’s attorney found 11 examples of deed restrictions selectively applied to other owners in the subdivision, all near Chang’s home.
A house across the street from the Changs made the same change to their home, although they were not penalized or prosecuted.
“In its final decision, the trial court ruled against GOMO and in favor of the Changs,” the court said documents of the resolution of the case in 2017.
“The trial court issued four declarations and awarded no attorney fees to the Changs.”
According to the outlet, the HOA was not satisfied with the decision.
A lawyer mentioned that the sentence was being “evaluated” to ensure no other options could be explored.
As of 2017, no further action against the Changs has been taken.
This story originally appeared on The-sun.com read the full story
