The Wharf v. Eric Springstun — Cause 23-07-10483-CV

Court: 284th Judicial District Court, Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause: 23-07-10483-CV

Appeal: Ninth Court of Appeals, No. 09-24-00270-CV

At a glance: a clear early procedural win for Eric Springstun

Cause 23-07-10483-CV marks the beginning of a documented sequence of Association-initiated litigation involving Eric Springstun after his 2022–2023 board service and a growing dispute over governance, communications, assessments, records, and financial transparency.

The Wharf at Clear Lake Slip Maintenance Association, Inc. filed the case against Springstun on July 20, 2023 seeking emergency and permanent injunctive relief. The trial court initially issued a temporary restraining order, but the Association still had to prove its entitlement to the more significant temporary injunction it requested.

After the August 31, 2023 temporary-injunction hearing, the trial court denied the Association’s request for a temporary injunction. The Ninth Court of Appeals later confirmed that result in its published opinion. For Springstun, that was a clear early procedural win: after the contested hearing process, the Association did not obtain the interim injunctive relief it had asked the court to impose against him.

On February 23, 2024, the Association then filed a Notice of Nonsuit Without Prejudice stating that it no longer wished to pursue its own affirmative claims against Springstun. The trial court granted the nonsuit.

The later summary-judgment proceedings concerned Springstun’s counterclaims and should be understood separately from this earlier sequence: Association files suit → Association fails to obtain temporary injunction → Association later nonsuits its own claims.

The weeks before the Association filed suit

Springstun served on the Wharf Association board from July 2022 until June 15, 2023 and had previously served as Vice President. The parties sharply dispute why his board service ended. The Association later asserted in its court papers that his removal was automatic because assessments had not been paid. Springstun disputed that account and alleged that the timing coincided with his objections to financial management, unauthorized expenditures, conflicts of interest, and his requests for greater transparency.

On June 27, 2023—twelve days after Springstun’s board service ended—the Association’s counsel issued a cease-and-desist concerning his communications with board members. The Association then filed its emergency injunction action in July.

Springstun has questioned whether that progression—board conflict, removal, cease-and-desist, and Association-filed litigation—was connected to his earlier governance objections. WharfClearLake.com presents that as Springstun’s position, not as an adjudicated finding. The dates and filing sequence, however, are part of the court record.

From board conflict to Association-filed litigation

The litigation followed a period of internal Association conflict. The published appellate opinion recounts that Springstun had been voted onto the board in 2022 and later served as Vice President. The Association’s petition alleged that his board service ended on June 15, 2023 for failure to pay assessments and that later communications and conduct justified injunctive relief.

Springstun has consistently disputed that characterization. His later counterclaims alleged that the dispute developed while he was raising concerns about financial management, unauthorized expenditures, use of Association funds, governance, and owner transparency. He alleged a connection between the later litigation and those objections.

WharfClearLake.com presents that claimed connection as Springstun’s position rather than an adjudicated fact. The documented chronology is narrower but still important: Springstun served on the board and as Vice President; the board relationship deteriorated; his service ended in June 2023; Association counsel issued a cease-and-desist later that month; and the Association filed the injunction case in July 2023.

Why the temporary-injunction denial matters

A temporary injunction is designed to preserve rights or prevent alleged harm while a case is pending. The Association asked the court to impose that relief against Springstun. After the temporary-injunction hearing, the court declined to do so.

The ruling did not decide every later claim or counterclaim in the case. But it did reject the Association’s request for the temporary injunctive relief it was actively seeking at that stage. For a public record that is often summarized only by later appellate results, that favorable early ruling deserves to be visible.

What the Association’s nonsuit means

The Association’s own February 23, 2024 filing stated that it no longer wished to pursue its claims and causes of action against Eric Springstun. The nonsuit ended the Association’s affirmative claims in that action without prejudice. It did not dispose of Springstun’s then-pending counterclaims, which continued separately.

That distinction matters because a reader who sees only the later summary-judgment history may miss that the Association had first brought the case against Eric Springstun, failed to obtain the requested temporary injunction after hearing, and then voluntarily stopped pursuing its own affirmative claims.

Eric Springstun’s property-owner context

Springstun’s counterclaims and later disputes did not arise in a vacuum. He has consistently described himself as a deeded property owner challenging disputed fees, enforcement, governance decisions, access issues, and the use of Association resources. Later League City code-enforcement and Fire Marshal records also documented maintenance and emergency-access matters at the marina, giving independent context to his position that physical-property conditions and Association priorities were part of the underlying conflict.

Counterclaims and later judgment

Springstun asserted counterclaims concerning matters including alleged false fines and fees, defamation, selective enforcement, governance, voting rights, use of Association funds, and related relief. The Association filed a traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment.

In May 2024, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Association and dismissed Springstun’s live counterclaims with prejudice. Springstun appealed. On August 28, 2025, the Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The Supreme Court of Texas later denied review on February 13, 2026.

From emergency litigation to denied injunction to voluntary nonsuit

The procedural sequence matters when evaluating whether Association legal spending produced value for the broader ownership. The Association chose to initiate the case and sought court orders restricting Springstun’s conduct. It obtained an initial TRO, but after Springstun appeared and the temporary-injunction hearing proceeded with testimony, the requested temporary injunction was denied. Months later, the Association itself elected to stop pursuing its affirmative claims.

That sequence does not prove that every dollar spent on the case was improper. It does create a legitimate owner-governance question: what did the Association spend to initiate and prosecute a case in which the requested temporary injunction was denied and the Association later voluntarily nonsuited its own claims?

Association-funded litigation and owner-spending questions

The 2023 case was not a lawsuit the Association was merely forced to defend. The Association chose to initiate it, sought emergency and injunctive relief, litigated the temporary-injunction phase, failed to obtain the requested temporary injunction after hearing, and later chose to nonsuit its own affirmative claims.

That sequence creates a legitimate owner-governance question: how much Association money was spent pursuing this case, and what measurable benefit did the ownership receive from that expenditure?

WharfClearLake.com does not assign a dollar figure to Cause 23-07-10483-CV without matter-specific invoices. The later 2024 Profit & Loss statement shows substantial Association-wide legal and professional expenditures, but it does not break those annual totals down by case. The site therefore treats any specific estimate for this lawsuit as unproven until invoices, billing records, or matter-level accounting are available.

Springstun’s position is more pointed: he has questioned whether using Association funds to pursue litigation against him while he was raising governance and financial concerns was a productive use of owner assessments, and he has alleged a connection between the litigation and those objections. Those remain his positions unless and until a court or source record establishes more.

Association legal-spending context

A separate Association financial record provides broader context about litigation-related spending. The Association’s 2024 Profit & Loss statement lists $69,496.77 in legal fees and $35,061.40 in professional fees. The same statement lists $137,578.38 in maintenance-fee income.

Important limitation: the annual Profit & Loss statement does not allocate those legal or professional fees to individual lawsuits. Accordingly, this site does not attribute a specific dollar amount from those totals to Cause No. 23-07-10483-CV unless matter-specific invoices or billing records establish that allocation.

That limitation is important because it keeps the strongest criticism tied to what the records actually show. The Association’s own 2024 Profit & Loss statement reported $69,496.77 in legal fees and $35,061.40 in professional fees across the Association as a whole. The current public record does not establish how much of those totals belonged to this particular case. The appropriate transparency question is therefore not “this lawsuit definitely cost tens of thousands,” but rather: what portion of Association legal spending was devoted to this Association-initiated litigation, and what benefit did owners receive from that expenditure after the temporary injunction was denied and the Association later nonsuited its own claims?

View the 2024 legal-spending record and methodology →

Documented 2023–2024 chronology

Date	Documented event
June 15, 2023	Eric Springstun’s Association board service ended. The parties later disputed the reason and surrounding circumstances.
June 27, 2023	Association counsel issued a cease-and-desist concerning Springstun’s communications with board members.
July 2023	The Association filed Cause 23-07-10483-CV seeking TRO, temporary-injunction, permanent-injunction, and related relief.
July 25, 2023	An initial TRO was granted before the later temporary-injunction proceedings.
August 31, 2023	After resumed hearings with testimony, the docket records an Order Denying Temporary Injunction.
February 23, 2024	The Association filed its Notice of Nonsuit stating it no longer wished to pursue its affirmative claims against Springstun.

Quick questions this chronology raises

Did Eric Springstun file the original 2023 lawsuit?

No. The Association was the plaintiff in Cause 23-07-10483-CV.

Did the Association obtain the requested temporary injunction after the contested hearing?

No. The court docket records an August 31, 2023 Order Denying Temporary Injunction.

Did the Association later continue pursuing its affirmative claims through final trial?

No. On February 23, 2024, the Association filed a Notice of Nonsuit stating that it no longer wished to pursue those claims.

Does the current record prove how many dollars the Association spent on this one case?

No. The annual financial statement shows substantial overall legal and professional spending but does not allocate those totals by matter. Matter-specific invoices are still needed for an exact case cost.

Why does Springstun question the timing of the sequence?

Springstun has alleged that his objections to financial management and requests for transparency preceded the end of his board service, the cease-and-desist, and the Association-filed injunction suit. Any claimed connection remains his position rather than an adjudicated finding.

A documented sequence owners can evaluate for themselves

1. 2022: Eric Springstun was voted onto the Association board and later became Vice President.
2. June 15, 2023: Springstun’s board service ended; the Association later attributed the removal to unpaid assessments, while Springstun disputed that account and later alleged retaliation connected to his financial-governance objections.
3. June 27, 2023: Association counsel issued a cease-and-desist concerning Springstun’s communications.
4. July 20, 2023: the Association filed Cause 23-07-10483-CV seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against Springstun.
5. August 31, 2023: after the temporary-injunction hearing, the court denied the Association’s request for a temporary injunction.
6. February 23, 2024: the Association filed its Notice of Nonsuit and voluntarily stopped pursuing its own affirmative claims.

That chronology does not prove a hidden motive. It does show that the Association initiated a significant legal action against a former board officer, failed to obtain the temporary injunction it sought, and later abandoned its own affirmative claims.

Why this case matters to the public record

Short online descriptions can blur together the Association’s claims, Springstun’s counterclaims, and the eventual appellate result. The chronology matters: the Association’s request for a temporary injunction was denied; the Association later voluntarily nonsuited its own claims; Springstun’s counterclaims continued; and those counterclaims were later resolved against him on summary judgment and appeal.

This site presents each of those events separately so readers can distinguish what was alleged, what was voluntarily withdrawn, and what was actually adjudicated.

Wharf Marina visual context

Source record

• Published Ninth Court of Appeals opinion, 09-24-00270-CV — confirms that the Association filed the action, that the court denied the Association’s temporary-injunction request after the August 31, 2023 hearing, and that the Association later filed its nonsuit.
• Notice of Nonsuit document page — summarizes the Association’s February 23, 2024 filing stating it no longer wished to pursue its claims against Springstun.
• Ninth Court opinion document page — places the later appellate result beside the earlier denied-injunction and nonsuit chronology.

• Association’s Notice of Nonsuit Without Prejudice — filed February 23, 2024.
• Order granting the Association’s nonsuit.
• Order granting the Association’s traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment on Springstun’s counterclaims.
• Ninth Court of Appeals judgment and memorandum opinion, No. 09-24-00270-CV — August 28, 2025.
• Supreme Court of Texas notice denying petition for review — February 13, 2026.

Editorial note: Allegations made by either side are described as allegations unless a cited court or agency record establishes an adjudicated finding. This page is intended to summarize the procedural record, not to relitigate the case.