9 minute read
litigAtion mArKetplAce
from THL_NovDec20
by QuantumSUR
Office Space HOuSTOn HEIgHTS OFFICE SpACE AvAIlABlE Individual, multiple, executive suite, or an entire building with one to six offices plus support staff areas available in historic Houston Heights Buildings! Historic charm with modern amenities. One property on Yale and one on Heights Blvd, both easily accessible and with ample visibility. Available space includes a conference room wired for flat screen and data ports in each office, full kitchen, ample parking. Price flexible on needs. Call: 504-237-6535 for more information.
KIRBY – 3730 Kirby, 7th Floor. Window office available. Part downtown & med center view. Suite shared w/ 4 attorneys. Includes networked copier/fax/scanner, phone, internet, conference room & reception area, kitchen, fileroom, staff space available. Covered free parking. Call Sam Bernstein at 713-526-4968.
HOuSTOn/EnERgY CORRIDOR I-10 & 1155 Dairy Ashford Established law firm with estate/ trust planning, probate/trust administration, elder law and business practice seeks to lease large 12x15 window office in friendly, beautiful office suite, with reception area. Office easily accommodates credenza, full size desk, two client chairs, two 5-drawer lateral files. Telephone, WiFi, high speed Internet, copiers/ scanners, fax. Kitchen with microwave and coffee. Notary available. Access to conference rooms on scheduled basis. Free covered parking for attorney and clients. Possible overflow work subject to attorney availability, skill and experience. $895/month, quarterly term. Steve 713-553-0732 (cell) steve@mendellawfirm.com.
HOUSTON—ONE GREENWAY PLAZA, SUITE 100—Class A space available for sublease. Great MultiLawyer/Corporate/Professional Suite—1st floor (no elevator needed), 15 ft+ ceilings, security, garage/ covered parking, digital phone/ voicemail-emailed/fax/high-speedinternet/cable system, 2 conference rooms, file room, front full-time bilingual receptionist, kitchen area; walk to new food court; fine dining/ restaurants; new Lifetime Fitness gym; Starbucks, etc. Recently refurbished office; various combinations available January/February 2021: 2 large window offices and/or 3 spacious furnished secretarial spaces. Virtual office space also available. Call Lawrence at 713-650-1222 or email: legal@texas.net.
HOuSTOn gAllERIA AREA nEW nORMAl OFFICE SpACE One approx. 14’ x 15’ office and one cubicle with high partitions. 5,000 sq ft suite for easy social distancing. File space; 2 conference rooms; kitchen; telephone system; fiber internet; copier; ground floor (no elevator rides). Not an executive suite. Contact kurt@kurtarbuckle.com.
FAnTASTIC lARgE OFFICE SpACE in Renovated mansion near Montrose. Exceptional charm on 3rd floor with sloped ceiling and lots of windows. $950/month includes all utilities, janitorial, internet, reception area, shared kitchen. Contact: judy.borrell@gmail.com or 713-459-3900
BEAuTIFul AnD COnvEnIEnT Three window offices available as a package or individually. Class A building on the West Loop in Bellaire. Conference room, kitchen, free parking, wi-fi, receptionist. Interior space for staff, file cabinets,etc. 713-840-7321 or andy@amwlawfirm.com.
Law Firm Acquiring KIEFABER & OlIvA llp IS InTERESTED In ACquIRIng A lAW FIRM We are eager to hear from principals of law firms that meet all of the following criteria: •Sizable revenue (an average of at least $1M of top line revenue over the last 5 years); •Demostrated consistent earning power (we are not interested in future projections); •Business earning good returns while employing little or no debt; •Management and staff in place; •Simple practice; •An offering price (we don’t want to waste our time or that of the seller by talking, even preliminarily, about a transaction when price is unknown). We can promise complete confidentiality and a very fast answer as to whether we’re interested. Please send correspondence to Zachary Oliva, Managing Partner of Kiefaber & Oliva LLP, via e-mail (zoliva@ kolawllp.com) or U.S. Mail (Kiefaber & Oliva LLP, 815 Walker Street, Suite 1140, Houston, Texas 77002).
Professional Services
video Mediations available
tive and judicial errors and returning the law to the straightforward requirement that government contracts be fully released after awarded to a third party unless the third party met a high burden, SB 943 approaches the issue from the top down, declaring a broad range of governmental economic activity to fall within the definition of “contracting information,” which is, however, itself subject to a new exception that allows withholding based on specific factual evidence that disclosure of the information would “reveal an individual approach” to aspects of the business that would “give advantage to a competitor” —the same burden as Boeing. But SB 943 also specifically lists contracting information that can never fall within this exception that, notably, includes “the overall or total price the governmental body will or could potentially pay,” “a description of the items or services to be delivered with the total price for each if a total price is identified for the item or service in the contract,” “information indicating whether a vendor performed its duties under a contract,” and other basic contract information that has been withheld from the public since the Boeing decision.4 While an extensive list of information, it also doesn’t clearly shine a light into dark corners of some governmental contracts which are often complex.
SB 943 also incorporates AGcreated “government trade secrets” interpretation into law, essentially setting the burden at the pre-Boeing standard where the governmental body establishes the “situation at issue is set to reoccur or there is a specific and demonstrable intent to enter into the competitive situation again in the future.”5
There has been a lawsuit regarding proper application of SB 943 already since its January 2, 2020 ef-
fective date. The Austin-American Statesman requested a copy of a Teachers Retirement System (“TRS”) lease for downtown Austin office space.6 TRS requested an attorney general ruling and the “third party” property owner (in which TRS apparently owns a significant stake) to submit arguments why the lease information should not be released. The attorney general however ruled no exception applied, and the property owner then filed suit against the attorney general to contest the ruling. The Statesman intervened and also sued TRS directly. TRS promptly disclosed the unredacted lease so there will be no opinion and any claim for attorney’s fees by the Statesman would likely be found moot.
Joe Larsen is a partner with Gregor Wynne Arney PLLC in Houston with a broad practice including media representation. He is a board member and chair of the review committee for the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas and recipient of FOIFT’s 2010 James Madison Award.
endnotes
1. Boeing v. Paxton, 466 S.W.3d 831 (Tex.2015). 2. TEX. GOV. CODE ANN. § 552.104(a). 3. Boeing, supra note 1 at 841 (quoting Tex. Att’y Gen.
Op. OR2013-08386 (2013)). 4. Supra note 2 at § 552.0222(b)(3)(A)–(B), (4). 5. Supra note 2. 6. See Bob Sechler, TRS Rent Starts at $326,000 Per
Month, AUSTIN-AMER. STATESMAN, Jan. 24, 2020, https://www.statesman.com/business/20200124/ trs-rent-starts-at-326000-per-month.
The Rise of AirBnB
By miA loricK
AirBnB rentals have risen in popularity over the last few years due to the ease of renting one’s home through the AirBnB app.1 Because renting one’s home is so easy, many owners are opting to rent their homes out for periods as short as one night. The money that homeowners make can easily add up to tens of thousands per year—making it an attractive investment. But, how do these rentals affect the community?
Consider this scenario:
A homeowner in Houston is leaving for a twoweek vacation. To earn some extra cash, he decides to advertise and rent his home on AirBnB.
He ultimately rents his home for five days to a young woman. The rental is confirmed through AirBnB and the owner leaves town. When the young woman arrives at the home, she posts the home’s location and the community’s gate code on Facebook because she is hosting her friend’s bachelorette party. By 9:00 p.m., 27 people arrive. The weekend is filled with increased noise and traffic due to the many cars coming and going from the house. The owner returns home, slightly annoyed by the trash, but decides it is worth it because he made $1,500 while he vacationed. A week later, he again decides to rent out his home when he is on a work trip and then again the following month when he is out of town for a wedding. Unsurprisingly, the neighbors notice.
The above-scenario is becoming more and more common. And, with close to 20,000 communities in Texas being deed restricted communities, many property owners’ associations are faced with determining whether such activity violates their applicable restrictive covenants.
The Texas Supreme Court recently considered short-term rentals and restrictive covenants in Tarr v. Timberwood Park. 2 In 2012, Mr. Tarr purchased a home in the Timberwood Park subdivision in San Antonio. But after his job transferred him to Houston, he began advertising his San Antonio home for lease.3 Between June and October of 2014, Tarr entered into 31 leases ranging from one to seven nights.4 After his neighbors began to complain, the Timberwood Park Owners’ Association sent Tarr a violation letter relying on the following restrictive covenant:
“All tracts shall be used solely for residential purposes, except tracts designated . . . for business purposes.”5
Based on the above provision, the association concluded that Tarr’s rentals violated the residential use restriction.6 But the Texas Supreme Court disagreed.
On May 25, 2018, The Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion and held that to determine intent behind a restrictive covenant, courts must consider the precise language chosen by the drafters and that courts cannot enlarge, extend, or stretch words to fit a desired construction.7 Meaning that unless the activity is expressly prohibited, then it is permitted. The Court noted that Tarr’s desired use—short-term rentals—was not expressly prohibited in the restrictive covenants and therefore, “no construction, no matter how liberal, can construe a property restriction into existence when the covenant is silent as to that limitation.”8
The implications of the Court’s Opinion are far reaching for communities that previously relied on the “residential-use” restriction to bar these types of rentals. Because of this strict construction approach, many cities in Texas have turned to their Legislature. For example, in 2016, Austin passed an ordinance that attempted to regulate short-term rentals by limiting the occupancy of a house to no more than two adults per bedroom. The ordinance further attempted to completely ban short-term rentals in which the owner was not present in the home during the stay. While the ordinance carved out an exception for an owner who only leases out her home for a limited period of time each year, on November 27, 2019, the Third Court of Appeals issued an opinion that declared the above-referenced sections of the ordinance unconstitutional.9 The Court held that the ordinance infringed on constitutional rights because it limited the fundamental right to peacefully assemble on private property. It is yet to be determined if the Texas Supreme Court will hear the case.10 But we now see a trend in Texas that favors short-term rentals no matter how much evidence there is that these rentals disturb the peacefulness of communities.
Mia Lorick is shareholder and director of diversity and inclusion for Roberts Markel Weinberg Butler Hailey PC.
endnotes
1. COVID-19 has created concerns among some travelers about the safety of renting an AirBnB. Hosts who list through the AirBnB app must agree to its COVID-19
Safety Practices by November 20, 2020, or risk having all their bookings suspended. See What Is AirBnB’s 5-Step Enhanced Cleaning Process, AIRBNB, https:// www.airbnb.com/help/article/2809/what-is-airbnbs5step-enhanced-cleaning-process (last visited Oct. 27, 2020). 2. Tarr v. Timberwood Park Owners Ass’n, NO. 16-1005, 2018 Tex. LEXIS 442, *1, 2019 WL 6336186 (May 25, 2018). 3. Id. 4. Id. 5. Id. at 4. 6. Id. at 5. 7. Id. at 12–13. 8. Id.. at 20–21. 9. Zaatari v. City of Austin, NO. 03-17-00812-CV, 2019
WL 6336186 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 27, 2019, no pet. h.). 10. A petition for review was filed by the City of Austin on
September 14, 2020, and the case was forwarded to the
Texas Supreme Court on October 13, 2020.
