A homeowners association is not legally responsible for a physical fight between one of its residents and its volunteer treasurer, a Texas appeals court has ruled. The dispute began after a heated exchange at a Lake Bonanza Property Owners Association meeting, where a resident started recording the proceedings. The situation led to a physical fight between the resident and the association’s elected treasurer, who was a volunteer rather than an employee. On November 12, 2026, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals of Texas upheld an earlier ruling in favour of the homeowners association. The appeals court found that the volunteer treasurer’s physical actions were not part of his duties or authority as a board member.According to the court’s written opinion, the people involved were resident Rodney Snell and the association’s treasurer, identified as Courtney in court documents. The incident took place during or after a budget meeting of the Lake Bonanza Property Owners Association in Montgomery County. Snell had started recording the meeting, a common practice at community gatherings that can sometimes lead to disagreements. The physical fight that followed between Snell and Courtney led Snell to file a personal injury lawsuit against Lake Bonanza Property Owners Association, Inc.Snell wanted the association to be held legally responsible for the actions of its elected volunteer board member. This type of legal responsibility is known as vicarious liability, often called respondeat superior. It is a legal rule that can make an employer or organisation responsible for the actions of an employee or representative when those actions happen as part of their job or official duties.
Examining the treasurer’s scope of volunteer duties
The main question before the Thirteenth Court of Appeals was whether Courtney’s actions during the physical fight were part of the authority given to him by the association. The judges looked at whether his actions were “within the scope of the . . . general authority in furtherance of the [principal’s] business and for the accomplishment of the object for which the [agent] was hired.” The court also examined what it means to be “hired” when someone holds an elected volunteer position. Vicarious liability usually applies to relationships between employers and employees. However, the court noted that it can also apply when an organisation has the right to control someone acting on its behalf.The opinion explained that Snell argued vicarious liability could apply because an organisation has the right to control its representative, even when there is no formal employment relationship. He also appeared to argue that “there should be no dispute . . . Courtney was an agent” of Lake Bonanza simply because he was its elected treasurer. However, the court concluded that holding the elected position of treasurer was not enough by itself to establish the legal requirements for vicarious liability. To decide whether Lake Bonanza could be held responsible for Courtney’s physical actions, the judges examined whether the fight was connected to his duties as treasurer. The opinion stated that “record evidence indicates this discussion did not occur during the board meeting or as part of Courtney’s duties as treasurer.”
Differentiating volunteer status from an employee relationship
Snell also made several other arguments to show that the association was directly responsible through negligence. The court considered whether Courtney was under the association’s control when the disagreement with Snell took place. The appeals court reviewed the case under a standard known as de novo. This means the judges examined the legal issues themselves without having to follow the lower court’s reasoning. To grant summary judgment, a party must show that “no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law,” the court explained.Snell argued that the association was directly negligent. According to the court’s opinion, proving this required evidence “of a legal duty, breach of that duty, and damages proximately resulting from the breach.” Snell also claimed that the association had failed in its duties when hiring and training Courtney. The court rejected these arguments. It found “no evidence Lake Bonanza either hired Courtney, trained him in any capacity or had any duty to train him, or had any duty to supervise him.“The judges also pointed out that Snell had not provided any legal authority showing that elected board members have a relationship with their associations similar to the relationship between employees and employers. Such a relationship would be important to support his direct negligence claims. The court concluded that Snell had “failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence to support his claim of negligent hiring and training.” It therefore upheld the summary judgment on the claims of direct liability as well. The association successfully showed that it was not legally responsible for the physical fight. As a result, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s decision that Snell could recover nothing from Lake Bonanza Property Owners Association, Inc.