Appellant, Waterford Lago Vista, LLC// Cross-Appellant, WF Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Appellees, Waterford Development Partners, LP and WF Property Owners Association, Inc.// Cross-Appellee, Waterford Lago Vista, LLC Appeal from 53rd District Court of Travis County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-22-00393-CV Appellant, Waterford Lago Vista, LLC// Cross-Appellant, WF Property Owners Association, Inc. v. Appellees, Waterford Development Partners, LP and WF Property Owners Association, Inc.//Cross-Appellee, Waterford Lago Vista, LLC FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1-GN-21-002370, THE HONORABLE AMY CLARK MEACHUM, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Waterford Lago Vista, LLC, and Cross-Appellant WF Property Owners Association, Inc., have filed petitions for permissive appeal seeking to challenge an interlocutory order denying their motions for summary judgment and granting in part Appellee Waterford Development Partners, LP’s motion for summary judgment. They have filed also a joint opposed motion for stay of trial proceedings pending appeal. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(d); Tex. R. App. P. 28.3. To be entitled to a permissive appeal from an interlocutory order that would not otherwise be appealable, the requesting party must establish that (1) the order to be appealed involves a “controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion” and (2) an immediate appeal from the order “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(d); see Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(e)(4); Tex. R. Civ. P. 168. Because we conclude that the petition fails to establish each requirement of Rule 28.3(e)(4), we deny the petition for permissive appeal, as well as the motion to stay proceedings. See Tex. R. App. P. 28.3(e)(4). __________________________________________ Chari Kelly, Justice Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly Filed: October 28, 2022 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.