This website contains information pertaining to the La Ventana subdivision in Driftwood, Texas.  The website provides information about a lawsuit relating to variances for private residential wells and buried propane tanks.  The lawsuit seeks to determine the validity of the variances and to enforce the restrictive covenants against the La Ventana Ranch Owners Association (ROA).

In 2006, residents submitted requests for variances to the Architectural Committee.  The purpose of the variances was to avoid a dispute over the ROA Board's interpretation of restrictive covenants.  The variances were granted in the manner set forth by the restrictive covenants.  A director engaged in a vicious campaign of defamatory and threatening emails about the variance-holders which he circulated to the residents of the subdivision.   He variously claimed to be speaking for the declarant, the Board, or a "Finance Committee".  Among other things his communications proclaimed the variances to be invalid, revoked, or rescinded.  Variance-holders were forced to seek a determination as to the validity of the variances in court and to enforce the restrictive covenants against the ROA Board.  Thus some of the variance-holders became Plaintiffs in a declaratory judgment action against the defendant ROA.

The most recent litigation status is posted first.  A chronological history of the litigation and related events follows. 

Litigation Status (Updated 06/23/2008)

On March 26, 2008 the ROA's motion for summary judgment was heard.   The Board argued that the variances were "waivers" and that the Architectural Committee was not empowered to grant waivers.  The Board also argued that any approval was subject to "ongoing consent".  Plaintiff variance-holders prevailed against the Board and the Board's motion was denied.

In a cross-motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs argued:

The court agreed again with the variance-holder Plaintiffs. 

Click here to see the judge's order 

The ROA attorney has little incentive to bring closure to this matter.  Irrespective of the merits of his argument, he draws from the ROA insurance policy as long as he can maintain a dispute.  Upon reviewing Board members' deposition testimony, one might conclude that Board members are oblivious to the reality that integrity, credibility, professional license(s), and freedom are expendable as far as the ROA attorney is concerned.  Critics note, however, that one can only lose the attributes possessed.  A September 2008 trial date is anticipated for resolution of remaining issues. 

Prior Litigation History:

Petition for Declaratory Judgment

On February 8, 2007 a number of homeowners filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment in order to ask a judge to determine the validity of certain provisions of the restrictive covenants ("CCRs") as well as variances granted to those homeowners.  The Petition was filed as a result of threats made by the La Ventana Ranch Owners Association (ROA) directors and officers.

Click here to see Plaintiffs' Original Petition

The ROA defendant was served February 9, 2007.  The ROA defendant timely answered with a general denial by March 5, 2007. 

The ROA is under declarant control.  At the time of filing the Petition, Driftwood Development, LP was the declarant.  Defendant Driftwood Development filed an answer. 

Defendant Driftwood Development was foreclosed upon on March 6, 2007.  A new entity, Interim-La Ventana, LLC became the declarant.  Plaintiffs preferred bringing this matter to closure without further litigation, however, the new declarant preferred preserving monopolies for the benefit of third parties.  The new declarant also controlled the ROA.

In order to ensure timely resolution of the contested matter by an independent tribunal, Plaintiffs filed an amended Petition (received March 27, 2007) to join the new declarant, Interim-La Ventana, LLC, as a defendant.

Click here to see Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition

Letter to interested Parties regarding Petition

Here is a copy of the March 29, 2007 letter sent at Plaintiffs' expense to La Ventana property owners regarding the Petition.

Click here to see the March 29, 2007 letter 

La Ventana Ranch Owners Association Sues Homeowners (04/12/2007)

Several homeowners discovered last night that the La Ventana Ranch Owners Association had sued them.  Here is a copy of the ROA defendant's First Amended Answer and Counterclaim which joined several other homeowners in the litigation:

Click here to see ROA's 1st Amended Answer and Counterclaims

La Ventana Ranch Owners Association Clouds Title to Homeowner Properties (04/12/2007)

In addition to the counterclaims, the La Ventana Ranch Owners Association files a lis pendens to cloud the title of all variance-holders. 

Click here to see the lis pendens

Litigation Status (Updated 01/04/2008 - revised)

Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment which was scheduled for a hearing on June 28, 2007.   The ROA filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.   Although there was a hearing, the hearing did not address the merits of the motions.  Among other things, the ROA attorney complained that he was unable to serve residents almost five months after the original filing date of the lawsuit.  (These were residents that he joined to the suit).

The judge denied each party's initial motion for summary judgment as a result.  In addition, the ROA lost its motion for continuance (i.e., delay), and was unsuccessful at obtaining injunctions to prohibit wells and buried propane tanks.  The judge was amenable to setting a trial date as early as possible.   Plaintiffs requested a bench trial in order to reach a timely resolution to the litigation.  The ROA attorney refused to commit to a trial date.

Prior to the hearing for the summary judgment motions, three of the Plaintiffs were deposed.  The dates and times were changed several times apparently for the purpose of inconveniencing Plaintiffs.  Nonetheless, Plaintiffs and counsel accommodated each and every change.  Although a 3 hour deposition was indicated, each deposition lasted a full 6 hours of deposition time.  In the waning minutes of the maximum time allowed for deposition, the ROA attorney was arguing with the transcriptionist about the number of minutes left.  [The ROA attorney's fees are presently covered by the ROA insurance policy]

Plaintiffs timely responded to the discovery requests made by the ROA attorney.  In contrast, the ROA generally refused to comply with Plaintiff's most basic requests.  The ROA attorney's lack of co-operation causes further delay as the pall of litigation lingers over the subdivision.

In November 2007, the ROA provided Plaintiffs with a demand under the guise of a settlement offer.  Plaintiffs were asked to yield their variances and sign documents beneficial to the ROA under the threat that any future settlement would require payment of the ROA's attorney fees.  This offer fell far short of an apology, an agreement to honor Plaintiff's valid variances, acknowledgment that the granting of variances is at the sole and absolute discretion of the Architectural Committee as provided in the CCRs, and compensation for the significant attorney fees incurred as a result of Board and ROA attorney's antics to date.  The settlement offer expired November 28, 2007.  None of the Plaintiffs accepted this generous offer. 

The ROA then attempted to have its summary motion reheard on December 3, 2007.   Apparently, this date was chosen in an attempt to have a judge other than the assigned judge from re-hearing the previously denied motion.  Plaintiffs' attorney successfully quashed the hearing date.  The court agreed that the assigned judge should hear any such motion.

The ROA filed yet another motion for summary judgment.  Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.  After the hearing for these motions, Plaintiffs anticipate filing motions to compel the ROA to comply with Plaintiff's discovery requests.   Plaintiffs expect to then proceed with deposing current and former directors and officers of the ROA.  A trial date has not been set yet.  However, now that the declarant is preparing to sell lots, the declarant-controlled ROA appears to be more amenable to achieving a timely resolution of this matter as Plaintiffs have promoted since the outset.

Questions?

La Ventana Vista

admin@laventanavista.com

visitors since March 25, 2007

last updated June 19, 2010 07:10:06