WCH Master Community, Inc. v. Thomas Wolf and Eileen Wolf

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 10, 2025·No. 15-25-00201-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

15-25-00201-CV

FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/10/2025 2:10 PM

No. 15-25-00201-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN, TEXAS AT AUSTIN 12/10/2025 2:10:45 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

Clerk

WCH MASTER COMMUNITY, INC.

Appellant,

v.

THOMAS WOLF AND EILEEN WOLF

Appellees,

On Appeal from Cause No. D-1-GN-25-000637

98th Judicial District Court

Travis County, Texas

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

N. Adam Pugh

Texas Bar No. 24044341 adam.pugh@caglepugh.com 4301 Westbank Drive,

Bldg. A, Suite 150 Austin, Texas 78746 Phone (737) 261-0600 Facsimile: (737) 261-0637 Counsel for Appellant

Oral Argument Not Requested

i

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Appellant: WCH Master Community, Inc. (the “Association”)

Appellee: Thomas Wolf and Eileen Wolf (together the “Wolfs”)

Counsel for Appellant in the trial court and on appeal:

Adam Pugh adam.pugh@caglepugh.com State Bar No.: 24044341 Marla Jones marla.jones@caglepugh.com State Bar No.: 24046174 CAGLE PUGH, LTD, LLP 4301 Westbank Dr. Bldg. A, Ste. 150 Austin, Texas 78746 Telephone: (737) 261-0600 Facsimile: (737) 261-0637

Counsel for Appellee in the trial court and on appeal:

Thomas Wolf twolf.tx@gmail.com PRO SE 21813 Agarito Lane Spicewood, Texas 78669

Trial Court: 98th District Court of Travis County, Texas (the “Trial Court”)

Cause No. D-1-GN-25-000637

Hon. Maria Cantu Hexsel, Judge Presiding

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... iii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................... iv ORAL ARGUMENT IS NOT REQUESTED ...........................................................v STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................ vi ISSUES PRESENTED............................................................................................. ix 1. The Trial Court erred by (a) denying the Association’s motion for summary judgment regarding the right to enforce the restrictive covenants of the Association; and by (b) granting, in part, the Wolfs’ motion for summary judgment. ....................................................................................................... ix SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................2 ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................6 1. The Trial Court erred by (a) denying the Association’s motion for summary judgment regarding the right to enforce the restrictive covenants of the Association; and by (b) granting, in part, the Wolfs’ motion for summary judgment. .........................................................................................................6 a. The Trial Court erred by (a) denying the Association’s motion for summary judgment regarding the right to enforce the restrictive covenants of the Association. ..................................................................6 b. The Trial Court erred in (b) granting, in part, the Wolfs’ motion for summary judgment.................................................................................10 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ..........................................................................................12 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................13 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................14

iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES Bank United v. Greenway Improvement Ass’n, 6 S.W.3d 705, 707 (Tex.App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) .....................................................................7 C.A.U.S.E v. Vill. Green Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 531 S.W.3d 268, 274 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 2017, no pet.) .........................................................................7 Chavez v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 520 S.W.3d 898, 900 (Tex. 2017) ......................6 Clark v. ConocoPhillips Co., 465 S.W.3d 720, 724 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]

2015, no pet.) ....................................................................................................6, 10 Frost Nat’l Bank v. L & F Distribs., Ltd., 165 S.W.3d 310, 311-12 (Tex. 2005)(per curiam) ....................................................................................................................7 Goddard v. Northhampton Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 229 S.W.3d 353, 356 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo 2007, no. pet.)(same) ...................................................................7 J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 229 (Tex. 2003) ..........................7 Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Ademaj, 243 S.W.3d 618, 621 (Tex. 2007) ........................6 Pilarcik v. Emmons, 966 S.W.2d 474, 478 (Tex. 1998) ............................................7 Tarr v. Timberwood Park Owners Ass’n, Inc., 556 S.W.3d 274, 280 (Tex. 2018) ...7 Uptegraph v. Sandalwood Civic Club, 312 S.W.3d 918, 925 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.)(same) ...............................................................................7 Valero Mktg. & Sup. Co. v. Kalama Int’l, 51 S.W. 3d 345, 351 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.) ..........................................................................................8 Wilmoth v. Wilcox, 734 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1987) ..............................................7

STATUTES TEX. PROP. CODE §202.004(a) ...................................................................................8 TEX. PROP. CODE § 202.023 ............................................................................ 8, 9, 10 TEX. PROP. CODE § 202.023(b) .................................................................... vi, 1, 5, 9 TEX. PROP. CODE § 202.023(c)(1) ........................................................................9, 10

iv

ORAL ARGUMENT IS NOT REQUESTED

This appeal involves the Trial Court’s error in (a) denying the Association’s

motion for summary judgment regarding the right to enforce the restrictive

covenants of the Association and by (b) granting, in part, the Wolfs’ motion for

summary judgment. The facts and legal argument are adequately presented in this

brief and the record, and the issues before the Court are not new or complex. As

such, it is believed this Court can decide the issues of law on the briefs and no oral

argument is necessary. However, if the Court should schedule an oral argument, the

Association would like to participate.

v

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the case:

The Association appeals the Trial Court’s Order Granting in Part and

Denying in Part Defendants’ Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary

Judgment and Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment entered into on

October 5, 2025 (the “Order”). CR:467; Apx:Ex.A1. This case involves a dispute

concerning enforcement of restrictive covenants and the limitations which can be

enacted and enforced.

The restrictive covenants applicable to the Wolfs’ property specifically

prohibit owners from constructing, altering, modifying, or installing any

improvements upon a lot without the advanced written approval of the Association

through the Architectural Committee (the “AC”). CR:19-135; Apx:Ex.B. The Wolfs

installed a free-standing pole on their property, and mounted a security camera on

top, which provides views down the street without approval of the AC. The

Association sued the Wolfs to enforce the applicable restrictive covenants and

require the pole, not the cameras, to be removed. Citing to Tex. Prop. C. §

202.023(b), the Trial Court denied the Association’s claims in their entirety and

1 The following abbreviations are used herein:

“CR:XX:XX” refers to the Clerk’s Record (followed by the Clerk’s Record page or other identifying number).

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

WCH Master Community, Inc. v. Thomas Wolf and Eileen Wolf, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

WCH Master Community, Inc. v. Thomas Wolf and Eileen Wolf (WCH Master Community, Inc. v. Thomas Wolf and Eileen Wolf) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster
128 S.W.3d 223 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Frost National Bank v. L & F Distributors, Ltd.
165 S.W.3d 310 (Texas Supreme Court, 2005)
Mid-Century Insurance Co. of Texas v. Ademaj
243 S.W.3d 618 (Texas Supreme Court, 2007)
Uptegraph v. Sandalwood Civic Club
312 S.W.3d 918 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
Goddard v. NORTHHAMPTON HOMEOWNERS ASS'N
229 S.W.3d 353 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Pilarcik v. Emmons
966 S.W.2d 474 (Texas Supreme Court, 1998)
Wilmoth v. Wilcox
734 S.W.2d 656 (Texas Supreme Court, 1987)
Bank United v. Greenway Improvement Ass'n
6 S.W.3d 705 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Clark v. Conocophillips Co.
465 S.W.3d 720 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015)
Tarr v. Timberwood Park Owners Ass'n, Inc.
556 S.W.3d 274 (Texas Supreme Court, 2018)