Things That Give Texas Developers and Their Attorneys Grey Hair
I have represented developers and investors in Texas real estate developments for over thirty years. I have been blessed with clients who are fabulous people to work with, and Texas development law is always challenging and interesting. There is one thing that is guaranteed to make both my clients and I tear our hair out however: arbitrary and capricious municipal governments and code enforcement personnel. They are not all that way, by any means: most Texas city government officials and personnel are highly professional. However, if you practice development law in Texas long enough, you will find that the few bad apples cause you more effort than all the others combined.
There is a game some municipal governments play called "Yes, that's what we promised then, but it's different now". The case of Continental Homes of Texas, L.P. v. City of San Antonio, decided recently by the Texas Fourth Court of Civil Appeals in San Antonio, illustrates what I mean. In 2002, the owners of a ranch, (located outside the San Antonio city limits but within its extra-territorial jurisdiction), received a "Vested Rights Permit" in return for giving the City a parcel of land for a gas metering station. The Permit had an effective date of 1991 and basically said that the ranch would be subject only to City ordinances and rules as of 1991, and not any passed thereafter. Importantly, the Permit had no expiration date.
In 2003, the City passed a Tree Preservation Ordinance, which required developers to, among other things, request a permit from the City Arborist before cutting trees, and to perform mitigation (i.e., plant new trees) if trees were going to be removed. In 2005, Continental bought part of the original ranch, and submitted a Master Development Plan to the City. The Plan was approved, but in a side letter, the City told Continental that Continental's Master Tree Stand Delineation was rejected, and further noted that the project will be subject to the City's Tree Preservation ordinance. In 2006, while Continental was clearing at the site, it was served with a temporary restraining order obtained by the City, stopping all work on the grounds that Continental was violating the Tree Preservation Ordinance.
The City argued that the Vested Rights Permit had become "dormant"! The trial court decided for the City. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court decision, and quite rightly held that the Vested Rights Permit controlled, and since the City's tree ordinance was passed after the date of the Vested Rights Permit, the tree ordinance did not apply to this property. Appropriately, the City had to pay Continental's attorney's fees. If I were a San Antonio taxpayer, I would be furious that my tax dollars financed a suit like this!
The Texas Supreme Court states that: "(the Culls) got extensive discovery under one set of rules and then sought to arbitrate the case under another. They delayed disposition by switching to arbitration when trial was imminent and arbitration was not. They got the court to order discovery for them and then limited their opponents’ rights to appellate review. Such manipulation of litigation for one party’s advantage and another’s detriment is precisely the kind of inherent unfairness that constitutes prejudice under federal and state law." As a result,the Texas Supreme Court set aside the award, and sent the case back to the trial court for a trial, on the grounds that the Culls had waived their right to arbitrate this dispute. 
This action has apparently angered fire departments and the emergency management coordinators of the involved counties. If I had represented the water district, I might have advised them to cover hydrants with a black tarp while the water district and the 
The 
The advance press on this book indicates that it deals with some of the paradoxes that water companies face. For example, water is essential to life and thus incredibly valuable, yet drinking water costs us a fraction of a cent out of our tap. Another paradox is that many of us purchase bottled water that costs thousands of times as much as tap water, yet almost everyone screams if our monthly water bill goes up. Finally, the book notes that water companies must sell water in order to stay in business, yet are often in the position of asking their customers to conserve and use less water!
The resulting operating statement (minus the capital expenditures) showed that the apartments made money. When the capital expenditures were added back in, the apartments lost money. The Court held that the "as-is" clause in this contract did not prevent the Seller from being liable to the Buyer for fraud due to the intentionally inaccurate financial documents provided to the Buyer. The Court notes that "...even sophisticated buyers have the right to rely on the veracity of the financial information provided to them by the sellers."
A recent case, 
This case illustrates what happens when older deed restrictions (drafted and filed before modular housing became widely available) come up against more recent technology. The truth is, mobile or manufactured housing is different from modular housing in many ways. However, while there is high end modular housing that is quite tasteful, some modular houses look not much nicer than manufactured or mobile homes, and are sometimes made of the cheapest of materials. If the other owners in this subdivision had spent substantial amounts of money on site-built homes, and the Defendant's home was of the cheap variety, it is understandable why they would be upset. The lesson for HOAs and their attorneys is clear: review your deed restrictions or restrictive covenants periodically, and update them to keep up with changing technologies.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are two federally chartered but privately operated organizations that buy real estate loans from banks. A large percentage of United States banks do not keep each home mortgage that they make for the full term of the loan. Instead, they sell their loans to Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae for a discounted amount of the full loan. Once the banks get paid by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, they can go out and make new loans with that money. Obviously, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are crucial to the liquidity of the United States mortgage industry. Banks will have to comply with standards set by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae in order to sell loans to them.
Will someone please send these politicians to economics school? Their proposals may be designed to get votes, but they do not appear to deal in an educated way with the current sub-prime mortgage issues. For one thing, these proposals are based on the assumption that all sub-prime loans were made by evil, greedy lenders who imposed fraudulent terms on unsuspecting borrowers. I doubt that this is the situation for every sub prime loan out there. Secondly, a certain portion of these borrowers will not be able to pay any type of reasonable monthly payment, and should not have qualified for these loans in the first place. Giving them more time to "work things out" may be a fantasy. Thirdly, who is going to be responsible for deterioration in the condition of some of these homes while payments are not being made (since the threat of foreclosure often serves to dampen homeowner maintenance and repair)? Fourth, have these politicians calculated the cost to the economy of the mortgages to qualified borrowers that do not get made because of the chill this "solution" has on the mortgage lending market? And finally, do we really want government to step in and rescue people who have, in many cases, made an uninformed or inappropriate financial decision?
Some have told me that they are just too busy. I ask those people to consider that it is only a commitment for one board meeting a month. Is that too much of a price in terms of time for healthy drinking water for ourselves and for our children and parents, who are the people most vulnerable to pathogens in improperly treated water?
