CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 03-14-00650-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2014

Wesley Spears and Renee Jacobs v. Falcon Pointe Community Homeowner's Association

This is an appeal initiated by homeowners Wesley Spears and Renee Jacobs against Falcon Pointe Community Homeowners' Association. The dispute arose after the homeowners extended their fence's height without obtaining prior approval, violating the Association's rules. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Association, ruling that the

Homeowners' AssociationCovenant ViolationFence HeightSummary JudgmentAppellate BriefDeclaratory Judgment ActionDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Motion for ContinuanceRecusal MotionTrial Court Judgment
References
47
Case No. E2009-01497-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2010

Berkeley Park Homeowners Association, Inc. v. John Tabor

Berkeley Park Homeowners Association and Southern Traditions Partners (collectively Berkeley Park) initiated contempt proceedings against John Tabor and Tabor Construction, Inc. (collectively Tabor) to enforce a 2006 mediated settlement agreement. Berkeley Park alleged multiple violations of the agreement regarding house construction in a subdivision, while Tabor argued a new 2007 agreement superseded the prior one. The trial court sided with Berkeley Park, finding no superseding agreement and holding Tabor in violation of the original agreement, awarding damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the evidence supported the findings that no new agreement was formed, Tabor breached the mediated settlement, Berkeley Park acted reasonably, and the award of fees was appropriate. The case involved disputes over architectural approvals, material submissions, payment of dues, hiring a licensed architect, and landscaping plans.

real estate disputehomeowners associationconstruction lawbreach of contractmediated settlementcontempt proceedingsinjunctive reliefproperty covenantsarchitectural controlattorney's fees
References
20
Case No. 03-21-00543-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2023

Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Rob Roy Homeowners Association, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between Jeffrey Wayne Phillips and the Rob Roy Homeowners Association (HOA) over unpaid assessments and fees. Phillips appealed the district court's summary judgment in favor of the HOA, which included awards for damages, fees, and judicial foreclosure. The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling on the HOA's power to assess fines and Phillips' affirmative defenses, but reversed and remanded the judicial foreclosure claim due to insufficient evidence that the HOA properly perfected its lien. The court also reversed and remanded the award of attorney's fees, deeming the conditional appellate fees improper and requiring reconsideration of trial fees. The remainder of the judgment was affirmed.

Property LawHomeowners AssociationUnpaid AssessmentsSummary JudgmentJudicial ForeclosureAttorney's FeesRestrictive CovenantsStatute of LimitationsQuasi-EstoppelHomestead Defense
References
37
Case No. 13-17-00691-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

David Atkinson v. Sunchase IV Homeowners Association, Inc. and Board

David Atkinson, a condominium owner, appealed a final judgment in favor of Sunchase IV Homeowners Association, Inc. and Board. Atkinson raised six issues, including complaints about utility payment as common expenses, the jury's failure to find breach of contract or fiduciary duty, the trial court's failure to rule on limitations on the board's powers, the distribution of lawsuit settlement funds, the granting of attorney's fees to the Association, and the creation of preferential parking rights. The appellate court overruled Atkinson's first, second, third, fourth, and sixth issues, largely due to waiver or insufficient legal argument. However, the court sustained Atkinson's fifth issue, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees to the Association under both the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act and the property code. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment regarding attorney's fees and affirmed the trial court's judgment in all other respects.

Condominium LawHomeowners AssociationBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesProperty CodeAppellate ProcedureFactual SufficiencyWaiver
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilchester West Concerned Homeowners LDEF, Inc. v. Wilchester West Fund, Inc.

This case addresses a dispute between a homeowners' organization, Wilchester West Concerned Homeowners LDEF, Inc. (WWCH), and several homeowners' associations along with a recreational club. WWCH challenged the trial court's summary judgment which favored the Wilchester West Fund, Inc., Wilchester Club, and Wilchester Owners Committee. The central issue was the validity of amended deed restrictions that mandated homeowner membership in the Wilchester Club and increased annual assessments for its recreational facilities. WWCH contended the amendments lacked proper authority and involved material non-disclosures. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the validity of the deed restriction amendments and the homeowners' associations' discretionary authority in entering into the Use Agreement.

Deed RestrictionsHomeowners AssociationDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentProperty RightsOrganizational StandingAmendment ValidityContract AuthorityNon-Profit CorporationTexas Property Code
References
27
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05204 [186 AD3d 1679]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2020

Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Half Moon Bay Mar. Condominium v. Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Assn., Inc.

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by the Board of Managers of Half Moon Bay Marina Condominium and Maria Elena DiBella against the Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Association, Inc. The dispute arose over the voting rights of Marina directors on the HOA Board, which the HOA Board sought to restrict. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, ruled in favor of the petitioners, compelling the HOA Board to allow unrestricted voting. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, determining that the HOA's bylaws regarding voting rights were ambiguous. The court found that extrinsic evidence, including the HOA Board's historical practice, supported the interpretation that all directors had an unrestricted right to vote on all HOA matters.

Bylaws InterpretationVoting RightsCondominium LawHomeowners AssociationCPLR Article 78Contract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceBoard of DirectorsAppellate ReviewAmbiguity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Texaco Inc.

Texaco Inc. and its two subsidiaries, Texaco Capital Inc. and Texaco Capital N.V., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Texaco sought to extend the exclusive periods for filing a reorganization plan, citing the massive size of the case, over 300,000 creditors, and the pending appeal of a $10.3 billion judgment against it by Pennzoil Company. Pennzoil, a leading general unsecured creditor, moved to reduce these exclusivity periods to propose its own creditor's plan. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Howard Schwartzberg, considered the unprecedented size and complexity of Texaco's bankruptcy case, which is the largest ever filed in the U.S., and the unresolved multi-billion dollar Pennzoil judgment. The court found that Texaco had established sufficient cause for an extension, while Pennzoil failed to demonstrate cause for reduction. Consequently, Texaco's motion to extend the exclusivity periods by another 120 and 180 days was granted, and Pennzoil's motion to shorten them was denied.

BankruptcyChapter 11Exclusivity PeriodPlan of ReorganizationCorporate DebtorsComplex LitigationDebtor-Creditor DisputeJudgment AppealSouthern District of New YorkCorporate Restructuring
References
12
Case No. ADJ8242446
Regular
May 14, 2013

DOMINGO LOYA vs. ALEJANDRO BURGOS, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY

This case concerns Domingo Loya's claim for workers' compensation after a fall while repairing a roof. The applicant contended he was an employee hired by the homeowner, Alejandro Burgos, whose wife operated a daycare on the property. The Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) and the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, finding Loya excluded from coverage under Labor Code Section 3352(h). This exclusion applies because Loya worked fewer than 52 hours for the homeowner within the 90 days preceding his injury, and his work was deemed that of a handyman, not in the course of the homeowner's business.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 3352(h)HandymanDaycare FacilityStewart caseCourse of TradeBusiness PremisesBusiness Property
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2004

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Hallman

Ruth Hallman sought defense and indemnification from her insurer, Allstate, under a homeowners policy after neighboring landowners sued her for damages from limestone mining on her property. Allstate initiated a declaratory judgment action, arguing the policy's business pursuits exclusion applied. The Texas Supreme Court, reviewing the lower courts' conflicting decisions, analyzed the business pursuits exclusion based on continuity of activity and profit motive. The Court concluded that Hallman's continuous leasing of her property for commercial limestone mining, inferred to be for profit, fell within the exclusion. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered judgment for Allstate, denying coverage and precluding Hallman's claim for attorney's fees.

Homeowners insuranceBusiness pursuits exclusionDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyDeclaratory judgmentLimestone miningProperty damageProfit motiveContinuity of activityAttorney's fees
References
21
Case No. 01-42217-REG
Regular Panel Decision

Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. (In re Ames Department Stores, Inc.)

This document is a report and recommendation from Judge Robert E. Gerber concerning Ames Department Stores, Inc.'s motion to confirm exclusive jurisdiction in an adversary proceeding against Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company. The proceeding, occurring under Ames' Chapter 11 bankruptcy, addresses the ownership of an $8 million trust account and alleged interference with the debtor's property. Judge Gerber recommends that the court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over all claims, asserting exclusive jurisdiction over specific claims involving automatic stay violations, marshaling, and equitable subordination. Furthermore, he advises that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not mandate deferral to an Illinois state court for these issues, and the First Assuming Jurisdiction Doctrine is applicable to certain in rem claims.

Bankruptcy LawJurisdictional DisputeExclusive JurisdictionAutomatic Stay ViolationMcCarran-Ferguson ActIn Rem JurisdictionAdversary ProceedingChapter 11 BankruptcySurety BondsCash Collateral
References
65
Showing 1-10 of 2,291 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational