Accordingly, the ROA is ambiguous as to the restriction’s purpose in restricting use of the overflow lots to parking. This ambiguity creates a fact issue as to the restriction’s purpose, and the fact issue precludes summary judgment on a “changed conditions” theory in Structure Owners’ favor. Moseley, 486 S.W.3d at 668-69 (ambiguity on purpose of restrictive covenant precluded summary judgment because it was unclear whether restriction against development of truck stop on undeveloped intersection corner was intended to apply only so long as operating truck stop on opposite corner continued to exist or, instead, to apply regardless of whether operating truck stop existed); see TX Far W. Ltd. v. Tex. Invs. Mgmt., Inc., 127 S.W.3d 295, 305-06 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). 3. A fact issue exists regarding degree to
holding parties to an exculpatory clause where the parties intent is clear holding summary judgment was not warranted because material facts were in dispute holding that where parties did not respond to an issue in summary judgment motion parties relinquished any claim on the issue and conceded that summary judgment should be entered against them holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact holding that dispute with regard to parties intent prohibits summary judgment