Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In 1954, the “Dedication of Southland Terrace, Fifth Filing, an Addition to the City of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas” was filed with the county. The subdivision plan stated that all lots in the subdivision were residential except for Block 24, which was reserved for commercial development. One provision of the plan stated that the covenants would run with the land until 1984, at which time the property owners could extend them for a successive period of 10 years by majority vote. No other mechanism for modifying the covenants existed. In 1961, the owners of Block 24 filed an “Amendment to Dedication of Block 24, Southland Terrace, Fifth Filing, an Addition to the City of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas.” The amendment altered the zoning of Block 24 by narrowing it to include more residential use and to restrict parking for adjacent establishments. A group including Bijan Youssefzadeh sought to build Fat Cat’s Liquor Store within Block 24. Another group, which included Blanche Brown, opposed the store. They cited the 1961 amendment as prohibiting Youssefzadeh’s proposed use. The trial court granted Brown’s motion for summary judgment, enjoining the operation of the liquor store, and denied Youssefzadeh’s cross-motion. HOLDING:Reversed and rendered that Brown take nothing. Since Brown attempted to validate the 1961 amendment, she had the burden to prove that all the necessary legal requisites were established to yield an effective, binding and mutually enforceable restriction. The court points out that according to Dyegard Land Partnership v. Hoover, 39 S.W.3d 300 (Tex.App. � Fort Worth 2001, no pet.), when the power to amend the land use restriction is reserved in the developer, the amendment of a restrictive covenant must be in the precise manner authorized by the dedicating agreement. The same “precise manner” requirement “should logically be required when the amendment mechanism lies other than with the developer,” the court says. In this case, the 1954 did not provide a unilateral mechanism for alteration of the restrictive use of Block 24. “Therefore, the plain and unambiguous wording of the 1954 Dedication leads to the conclusion that the attempted 1961 Amendment, utilizing an amendment method not called for in the 1954 Dedication to divide commercial-use Block 24 into both commercial and residential use, was not in the”precise manner’ called for in the 1954 Dedication and, therefore, was of no force and effect.” OPINION:McCoy, J.; Cayce, C.J., Gardner and McCoy, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.