A Texas appeals court has upheld a trial court's decision to deny Karrie Key's motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against her by the Tiffany Condominium Owners Association, Inc. The ruling, issued on May 13, 2026, is significant for condo owners and homeowners associations across Texas, as it clarifies the application of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) in disputes involving community associations.

The case, Karrie Key v. Tiffany Condominium Owners Association, Inc. (docket number 03-25-00726-CV), centers around a dispute that arose when the Association sought to enforce its rules regarding necessary repairs to the sewer system affecting the entire property. This ruling highlights the balance between individual rights and community responsibilities in residential settings.

Background

The Tiffany Condominium Owners Association, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Key and four other condo owners on June 10, 2025. The Association sought both temporary and permanent injunctions, requiring the defendants to vacate their units to facilitate urgent repairs to the common areas’ sewer system. The Association claimed that hazardous waste was leaking from the sewer system into several units, posing health and safety risks.

According to the Association, an expert report indicated that a full sewage system replacement was necessary, and the entire eighty-eight unit property would need to be vacated for approximately ninety days to complete the extensive repairs. The Association provided notice to all condo owners on May 1, 2025, requiring them to vacate by July 1, 2025. Most owners complied, but the five defendants, including Key, refused to leave, delaying the repair project.

The Association argued that the refusal of these defendants threatened the entire building with condemnation due to the hazardous conditions. In addition to seeking injunctive relief, the Association also sought statutory damages and attorney’s fees for violations of the deed restrictions and bylaws.

The Ruling

In its ruling, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to deny Key's TCPA motion to dismiss. The court found that Key did not demonstrate that the TCPA applied to the Association's lawsuit, which included claims for deed violations and tortious interference.

The court ruled, "Key did not meet her burden to demonstrate that the TCPA applies to the Association’s initial filing of its lawsuit and the claim therein for Key’s alleged, threatened violations of applicable deed restrictions."

The court explained that for the TCPA to apply, Key needed to show that the lawsuit was based on her exercise of protected rights, such as free speech or the right to petition. However, the court determined that Key's refusal to vacate her condo did not constitute a matter of public concern or a communication related to a judicial proceeding.

Additionally, the court addressed the Association's claims for tortious interference, noting that the core of the claim was Key's failure to vacate her unit, rather than any statements she made about her intentions. The court emphasized that the TCPA does not apply to communications that do not have broader relevance beyond the parties involved.

Impact

This ruling has implications for both condominium owners and homeowners associations in Texas. It clarifies the limits of the TCPA in disputes involving community governance and reinforces the authority of associations to enforce their rules and regulations. The decision indicates that while individuals have rights under the TCPA, those rights must be balanced against the community's need to maintain safety and order.

The court's ruling may encourage associations to take necessary legal actions to protect the health and safety of their properties without fear of dismissal under the TCPA. This case also serves as a reminder for condo owners to be aware of their responsibilities to comply with community rules, especially in situations involving health and safety hazards.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Key plans to appeal the ruling. However, the court's decision does not preclude further legal actions or related cases that may arise from this dispute.