Deed Restrictions

When the developer deeded the common property in our subdivision in Texas to the POA, there was wording added that states that an owner can never be billed for more than two lots, i.e., $17 per year for one lot and $20 per year for two or more. The intention at the time according to the attorney was that it was to protect the developer until they were able to sell all lots. After the common property was turned over to the POA, this wording was not recorded in the new deed restrictions, nor any of the corporations governing documents, in fact, it may have even been voted on by the members at the time which was over 49 years ago. Now, there are residents who own multiple lots throughout the subdivision and lease them as an income who are refusing to pay anything for the additional properties. The general interpretation was that if you owned ADJACENT lots, no matter the number, that you would pay a maximum amount for that property, and that additional properties held by the same owner on the other side of the subdivision would be a separate account and subject to additional dues.

My first question is, how can restrictions from the original deed of transfer - that are not recorded in the current subdivision deed restrictions - apply? Aren't the only governing documents the currently recorded deed restrictions, articles of incorporation, charter, bylaws and rules & regulations?

Secondly, are there any property codes or state laws in Texas that might define a hoa/poa "account" or maybe shed light on delineation?

I'm not sure if I understand what happened but I think what you said was that the developer recorded deed restrictions (CC&R's) 49 years ago and nothing in the CC&R's addresses the issue of assessments on multiple lots. At some point the developer deeded the common areas to the HOA and in that deed he added the part about assessments on multiple lots. Is that how this came about?

If this is what happened, then it appears that the developer created an agreement between himself and the association to limit how much he would have to pay for his unsold lots in exchange for the deed to the common areas. It is not clear whether it would have been within the discretion of the board of directors to accept or reject his offer but it appears that they accepted it. There may be no way of knowing now whether he controlled to association at the time of the transfer.

But your real question is can the current owners of multiple lots refuse to pay their full assessments?

If the deed for the common areas attempted to extend the waiver of full payment to all multiple lot holders, you may have a good fight on your hands. Those who assert that they should not have to pay will need to show among other things that they (or their predecessors) were parties to the agreement and that the association had the authority to grant waivers of assessments.