Inwood North Homeowners' Association v. Harris

736 S.W.2d 632 (1987)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Inwood North Homeowners’ Association v. Harris

Texas Supreme Court
736 S.W.2d 632 (1987)


In 1980 Inwood North Associates filed a declaration of covenants and restrictions for the Inwood North subdivision. The declaration provided that all lots in the subdivision were impressed with covenants and restrictions requiring each person receiving a deed to agree to pay annual assessments and special assessments for capital improvements. The assessments, plus costs of collection and interest, were intended to create a vendor’s lien that ran with the land and bound all subsequent purchasers. The declaration also created the Inwood North Homeowners’ Association (the association) (plaintiff) to enforce the covenants and ensure the preservation of the subdivision. Many lots were sold between 1981 and 1983, and the homeowners’ deeds specifically referenced the maintenance charges or the property records for the declaration. When the assessments for some of those homeowners (defendants) became delinquent, the association sued to recover the amounts due and to foreclose on the vendor’s lien in the declaration. Some of the delinquent homeowners settled their accounts, but others did not, and when the latter homeowners failed to appear after being properly served, the trial court entered a default judgment against them but refused to order foreclosure. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the state homestead law precluded foreclosure. The association appealed. Under state law, a homestead was generally protected against all debts owed by those who lived in the homestead. The state constitution permitted foreclosure on the homestead for only a few debts, including those “for the purchase money, the taxes due thereon, or for work and material used in constructing improvements thereon.” State law also recognized that (1) a covenant to pay maintenance assessments for common areas touched on and concerned the land and thus ran with the land; (2) a landowner could generally contract with respect to their property in any manner that did not violate public policy; and (3) a contractual lien would be enforced even if it was improperly designated a vendor’s lien. Finally, state courts held that an encumbrance on property cannot be affected by a later impression of the homestead exception on the property.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Robertson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 734,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership