Roberto Perez-Vega, Ovidio C. Giberga Jr., Kimberly Giberga, Verl Coley, Jason K. Robison, Leah M. Hightower, Brendan Scott Baker, Whitney Lynn Baker, David J. Logsdon, Harriett D. Logsdon, Susann L. Perez Johnson, Kim Thuy Thi Tran, and Elizabeth Schumann v. Deerfield Owners Association, Inc.
Docket 04-25-00459-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 4th District (San Antonio)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Docket
- 04-25-00459-CV
Appeal from the trial court's denial of a motion for a temporary injunction in a dispute between homeowners and a property owners association
Summary
The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of appellants' request for a second temporary injunction seeking to stop the homeowners association's election to amend its declaration to allow sale of a subdivision park. Appellants (residents) had a prior temporary injunction preventing sale of Thrush Ridge Park and sued for declaratory and injunctive relief; the Association held an election and appellants sought to enjoin it. The appeals court concluded the record lacked the evidentiary exhibits from the injunction hearing, so the appellants failed to show the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief.
Issues Decided
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying appellants' application for a temporary injunction to enjoin the Association's election to amend the declaration.
- Whether the record (reporter's record and exhibits) contains competent evidence supporting issuance of a temporary injunction.
Court's Reasoning
Texas law requires competent evidence be presented at the temporary-injunction hearing. The reporter's record on appeal did not include the four documentary exhibits admitted at the hearing, so the appellate court could not evaluate whether the trial court relied on sufficient evidence. Because the record lacked those exhibits, the appellants could not show the trial court abused its discretion by denying the injunction, and the denial was affirmed.
Authorities Cited
- Bay Financial Savings Bank v. Brown142 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no pet.)
- Prappas v. EntezamiNo. 04-05-00886-CV, 2006 WL 704426 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 22, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.)
Parties
- Appellants
- Roberto Perez-Vega; Ovidio C. Giberga Jr.; Kimberly Giberga; Verl Coley; Jason K. Robison; Leah M. Hightower; Brendan Scott Baker; Whitney Lynn Baker; David J. Logsdon; Harriett D. Logsdon; Susann L. Perez Johnson; Kim Thuy Thi Tran; Elizabeth Schumann
- Appellee
- Deerfield Owners Association, Inc.
- Judge
- Hon. Elizabeth Martinez (trial); Rebeca C. Martinez (Chief Justice, opinion)
Key Dates
- Opinion filed
- 2026-04-08
- Trial court injunction hearing (approximate)
- 2025-04-25
- Trial court order denying second temporary injunction
- 2025-06-27
- Motion for partial summary judgment filed
- 2025-07-16
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Assemble complete hearing record
Appellants should obtain and lodge the missing reporter's exhibits and any other evidence from the injunction hearing to ensure a complete appellate record for any future review.
- 2
Consider renewed injunction motion
If the Association proceeds with election or sale, appellants may ask the trial court for another temporary injunction and present competent sworn evidence at the hearing.
- 3
Proceed with merits of case
Continue litigating the underlying declaratory and injunctive claims about whether the park is common area and whether the association may sell it.
- 4
Consult appellate counsel
Discuss whether to seek further appellate relief (rehabilitative filings) and strategies to ensure the record on appeal is complete.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the appeals court decide?
- The appeals court affirmed the trial court's denial of a request to block the homeowners association's election because the appellate record lacked the exhibits from the injunction hearing, so the court could not find an abuse of discretion.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The residents who sought to stop the election and the Deerfield Owners Association are directly affected; the Association may proceed unless further injunctions are obtained.
- Does this resolve who owns or can sell the park?
- No. The decision only affirms denial of a temporary injunction against the election; underlying claims about whether the lots are common area remain pending in the trial court.
- Can the appellants try again?
- Possibly; they could attempt to introduce a complete record on remand, seek a new temporary injunction with competent evidence, or pursue their underlying declaratory and injunctive claims in the trial court.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-25-00459-CV
Roberto PEREZ-VEGA, Ovidio C. Giberga Jr., Kimberly Giberga, Verl Coley, Jason K.
Robison, Leah M. Hightower, Brendan Scott Baker, Whitney Lynn Baker, David J. Logsdon,
Harriett D. Logsdon, Susann L. Perez Johnson, Kim Thuy Thi Tran, and Elizabeth Schumann,
Appellants
v.
DEERFIELD OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Appellee
From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2023-CI-26200
Honorable Elizabeth Martinez, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
Adrian A. Spears II, Justice
H. Todd McCray, Justice
Delivered and Filed: April 8, 2026
AFFIRMED
Roberto Perez-Vega and the other appellants 1 (collectively “Perez-Vega”) reside in the
Deerfield subdivision. Appellee, the Deerfield Owner’s Association, Inc., through its Board of
Directors, manages the subdivision’s amenities. In 2023, the Board determined that certain
1
The other appellants are Ovidio C. Giberga, Jr., Kimberly Giberga, Verl Coley, Jason K. Robison, Leah M.
Hightower, Brendan Scott Baker, Whitney Lynn Baker, David J. Logsdon, Harriett D. Logsdon, Susann L. Perez
Johnson, Kim Thuy Thi Tran, and Elizbeth Schumann.
04-25-00459-CV
undeveloped lots, commonly known as “Thrush Ridge Park,” were “non-common area lots” that
the Association could, in accordance with the Association’s articles and bylaws, sell to pay for
improvements to the subdivision’s recreation facilities. Perez-Vega disputes the Board’s
determination, and he filed suit for equitable, declaratory, and injunctive relief. The trial court
signed a temporary injunction order that prevents the Association from selling the Park.
Thereafter, the Association began an election of all homeowners to amend its Declaration
of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions to expressly permit the sale of the Park. Perez-Vega
sought to enjoin this election, contending that it was an attempt to circumvent the earlier temporary
injunction order. The trial court, presided over by a different trial judge, 2 held an evidentiary
hearing wherein no sworn testimony was taken but four exhibits were admitted by agreement. The
trial court denied Perez-Vega’s request for a temporary injunction. Perez-Vega timely appeals,
raising two issues.
As a threshold matter, we note that although the trial court admitted four exhibits at the
temporary injunction hearing concerning the Association’s election, the reporter’s record from that
hearing contains no exhibits. The Association’s brief highlights this deficiency, stating:
As a caveat concerning Appellants’ Statement of Facts and certain of their record
references therein, [the Association] would point out that the portion of the Clerk’s
Record from pages 98 through 179 consists of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, which was filed on July 16, 2025 – the same day Appellants
perfected their appeal of the trial court’s interlocutory order. Thus, neither that
motion (which Plaintiffs/Appellants lost, per the trial court’s docket entry of August
5, 2025) (Appendix I) nor most of the documents attached thereto were considered
by the trial court in entering its June 27, 2025 order denying Appellants’ request
for a temporary injunction. The April 25, 2025 hearing on the injunction included
four documentary exhibits, but Appellants have not brought those forward in the
Reporter’s Record.
2
See Hjella v. Red McCombs Motors, Ltd., No. 04-20-00359-CV, 2022 WL 789501, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio
Mar. 16, 2022, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (recognizing that under the presiding court central docket system used in Bexar
County, different district court judges preside over discrete motions).
-2-
04-25-00459-CV
Perez-Vega’s reply brief fails to address the record deficiency that the Association’s brief
highlights.
“No temporary injunction may issue unless the applicant offers competent evidence in
support of his or her application to the trial court at the hearing on the temporary injunction . . . .”
Bay Fin. Sav. Bank, FSB v. Brown, 142 S.W.3d 586, 589–90 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004, no
pet.). In this case, we cannot determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying
Perez-Vega’s application for a temporary injunction order because the reporter’s record before us
contains no evidence. See Prappas v. Entezami, No. 04-05-00886-CV, 2006 WL 704426, at *2
(Tex. App.—San Antonio Mar. 22, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“In this case, because we lack a
reporter’s record, it appears the only evidence before the trial court was appellee’s verified
application, which, standing alone, is not sufficient to support the temporary injunction.”).
Accordingly, Perez-Vega’s two issues are overruled.
We affirm the trial court’s order denying Perez-Vega’s application for a second temporary
injunction order.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
-3-