Horseshoe Bay Resort, LTD v. CRVI CDP Portfolio, LLC

Court of Appeals of Texas

Horseshoe Bay Resort, LTD v. CRVI CDP Portfolio, LLC

DecidedSeptember 12, 2013

Docket11-11-00286-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Horseshoe Bay Resort, LTD v. CRVI CDP Portfolio, LLC (Horseshoe Bay Resort, LTD v. CRVI CDP Portfolio, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Horseshoe Bay Resort, LTD v. CRVI CDP Portfolio, LLC, (Tex. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

11TH COURT OF APPEALS EASTLAND, TEXAS JUDGMENT

Horseshoe Bay Resort, Ltd., * From the 424th District Court of Llano County, Trial Court No. 16830.

Vs. No. 11-11-00286-CV * September 12, 2013

CRVI CDP Portfolio, LLC, * Opinion by McCall, J. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court=s opinion, we affirm the trial court’s judgment to the extent that it determined that CRVI CDP Portfolio, LLC (Cypress) is the successor in interest to Centex Homes d/b/a Centex Destination Properties (Centex) under the Contract. We reverse the judgment in part and remand for a trial on the issue of the length of time that Horseshoe Bay Resort, Ltd. (the Resort) must reserve the remaining 225 memberships under Section 3.1 and the length of time that the forty-two discounted initiation fees may be used by an owner of a residential unit of the Waters who joins the Resort. We reverse the trial court’s judgment in part, and we render judgment that all rights to discounted initiation fees under the Contract terminated on January 31, 2010. We affirm the trial court’s judgment to the extent that it determined that the Centex marina is for the exclusive use of the owners of residential units (and their families, guests, and respective successors and assigns) and that the Contract restricts Cypress to selling or renting boat slips only to the Waters residents. We affirm the trial court’s judgment to the extent that it determined that Cypress is not entitled to attorneys’ fees. We reverse the trial court’s judgment in part, and we render judgment that Cypress is not entitled to the trial court’s declaration on “freeze out” of applicants for membership in the Resort. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed twenty-five percent against Horseshoe Bay Resort, Ltd. and seventy-five percent against CRVI CDP Portfolio, LLC.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

11TH COURT OF APPEALS EASTLAND, TEXAS JUDGMENT

Horseshoe Bay Resort, Ltd., * From the 424th District Court of Llano County, Trial Court No. 16830.

Vs. No. 11-11-00286-CV * September 12, 2013

CRVI CDP Portfolio, LLC, * Opinion by McCall, J. (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Willson, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court=s opinion, we affirm the trial court’s judgment to the extent that it determined that CRVI CDP Portfolio, LLC (Cypress) is the successor in interest to Centex Homes d/b/a Centex Destination Properties (Centex) under the Contract. We reverse the judgment in part and remand for a trial on the issue of the length of time that Horseshoe Bay Resort, Ltd. (the Resort) must reserve the remaining 225 memberships under Section 3.1 and the length of time that the forty-two discounted initiation fees may be used by an owner of a residential unit of the Waters who joins the Resort. We reverse the trial court’s judgment in part, and we render judgment that all rights to discounted initiation fees under the Contract terminated on January 31, 2010. We affirm the trial court’s judgment to the extent that it determined that the Centex marina is for the exclusive use of the owners of residential units (and their families, guests, and respective successors and assigns) and that the Contract restricts Cypress to selling or renting boat slips only to the Waters residents. We affirm the trial court’s judgment to the extent that it determined that Cypress is not entitled to attorneys’ fees. We reverse the trial court’s judgment in part, and we render judgment that Cypress is not entitled to the trial court’s declaration on “freeze out” of applicants for membership in the Resort. The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed twenty-five percent against Horseshoe Bay Resort, Ltd. and seventy-five percent against CRVI CDP Portfolio, LLC.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Horseshoe Bay Resort, LTD v. CRVI CDP Portfolio, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horseshoe-bay-resort-ltd-v-crvi-cdp-portfolio-llc-texapp-2013.