Double Diamond Delaware, Inc. v.
Walkinshaw
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-13-00893-CV (October 7, 2013)
Justices Moseley, Lang-Miers (Opinion), and Lewis
Dallas Court of Appeals, No. 05-13-00893-CV (October 7, 2013)
Justices Moseley, Lang-Miers (Opinion), and Lewis
A group of property owners sued a developer, challenging assessments of mandatory
property-owners-association fees. The
parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, each asserting multiple
grounds. The trial court granted the
plaintiffs’ motion, denied the defendants’ motion, and granted permission to
appeal under former section 51.014(d) of the Civil Practice and Remedies
Code. In accordance with the statute, the
trial court’s order noted that the parties agreed to an appeal, that the order
involved a controlling question of law, and that an immediate appeal would
materially advance the litigation, but the order did not state the basis for
the court’s summary-judgment ruling. In
their appellate briefing, the appellants identified four controlling questions
that were raised in the motions for summary judgment and were at issue in the
appeal. But the Court of Appeals
declined to consider whether those questions satisfied the statutory
requirements, concluding it lacked jurisdiction because “[t]he appealed order
is silent as to the basis for the trial court’s order, and nothing in the
record shows the trial court made a substantive ruling on any of the legal
issues presented to us.” The Court
dismissed the appeal.
