Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth
THE 431ST DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY TRIAL COURT NO.
MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
three issues, Appellant Vicki Saulnier appeals an order
imposing sanctions against her pursuant to rule of civil
procedure 13. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 13. Because the
order plainly fails to comply with rule 13's good cause
particularity requirement, we must reverse and remand.
is a residential community located in Denton County, adjacent
to Lewisville Lake. When Saulnier initiated the underlying
litigation in March 2014, Saratoga was governed by a First
Amended and Restated Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CCRs). Among other things, the CCRs contained
provisions applicable to the Saratoga Property Owners
Association, Inc. (the SPOA), created an Architectural
Control Committee (ACC), and permitted the creation and
implementation of Design Guidelines. The SPOA, which acted by
and through a Board of Directors (the Board), was responsible
for applying and enforcing the CCRs, the ACC was responsible
for approving proposed construction plans, and the Design
Guidelines were intended to be "applicable to all
construction activities within" Saratoga.
lives in Saratoga and served as an officer on the Board from
2009 through 2012. She was the Board's president when it
adopted Design Guidelines in 2012. In March 2014, the
Board's members were Appellees Danita Haase, Greg
Collins, Lourinda Willey, Richard Nygren, and Scott Brown,
all of whom also resided in Saratoga.
Newman and Jennifer Bynum owned the property adjacent to
Saulnier's property, and Marilyn League owned the
property adjacent to Newman's and Bynum's property.
The properties abut Corps of Engineers' property.
early March 2014, Newman and Bynum requested permission from
the Board to construct an eight-foot-high privacy fence
between their property and League's property. Newman and
Bynum had submitted a similar request in 2012, when Saulnier
was the Board's president, but the request was denied.
Saulnier objected to Newman's and Bynum's request,
but the Board approved it, concluding that several provisions
contained in the Design Guidelines (which prohibited privacy
fencing over six feet tall and on lots abutting Corps of
Engineers' property) conflicted with the CCRs (which
permitted privacy fences) and were therefore unenforceable.
Newman and Bynum constructed the fence.
quickly sued the SPOA, Newman and Bynum, and the members of
the Board in their individual capacities for breach of
contract. Regarding the Board members, Saulnier
alleged that they had breached the CCRs and the Design
Guidelines by approving Newman's and Bynum's fence
because no plans were submitted to the ACC for approval, the
ACC did not approve any plans, the fence was over six feet
tall, and the fence was located on property that abutted
Corps of Engineers' property.
Board members answered, filed a counterclaim for breach of
the CCRs, filed a motion to dismiss, and moved for sanctions.
After amending their answers several times, and reasserting
their motions to dismiss and for sanctions, the Board members
filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that they were
not liable in their individual capacities for an action that
they had taken in their official capacities as members of the
Board-approving the Newman and Bynum fence request. The Board
members referenced business organizations code section
22.221(b) and property code section
addition to responding to the motion for summary judgment,
Saulnier filed a second-amended petition in which she added
claims against the Board members for (1) violating property
code section 202.004(a), (2) violating business organizations
code section 22.221(a)‒(b), and (3) a declaration that
she had not breached the CCRs. Saulnier also added a section
to her petition entitled, "The Board's Desire and
Motivation to Harm Plaintiff, " which set out a
nineteen-point "laundry list" of allegations
against the Board that largely had nothing to do with the
Newman and Bynum fence request. Saulnier repeated the laundry
list in several other pleadings.
October 2014, the trial court granted the Board members
summary judgment on Saulnier's breach-of-contract claim.
After the Board members nonsuited their contract claim
against Saulnier and amended their answer, once again
requesting sanctions, Saulnier nonsuited her claims against
them for violating the property code and the business
organizations code. The same day that Saulnier filed her
third-amended petition-which alleged claims for breach of
contract only to preserve her right to appeal,  violation of the
property and business organizations codes against only the
SPOA, and declaratory relief-the trial court granted summary
judgment for the Board members on Saulnier's request for
declaratory relief, her only ...