a waiver of the restrictive covenant, PBPOA presents a relative statistical analysis of cases where the courts have found no waiver of a restrictive covenants. See Dempsey, 737 S.W.2d at 595(no waiver where 11 of 2,460 properties (4%) violated covenants); Tanglewood Homes Assoc. v. Henke, 728 S.W.2d 39, 44 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.)(no waiver where five violations existed in total of 560 properties (.89%)); New Jerusalem Baptist Church, 598 S.W.2d at 669 (finding no waiver where four violations in total of 169 properties (2.3%) existed); Underwood v. Webb, 544 S.W.2d 187, 190 (Tex.Civ.App.—Waco 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (waiver did not exist when two violations existed in total of 493 properties (.4%)). But see Tanglewood Homes Ass’n, 728 S.W.2d at 43 (<HOLDING>). PBPOA’s level of violations fits within the
holding lab report properly admitted as business record supported finding of violation of probation holding substantial evidence supported jury finding of abuse of process holding that if a reasonable fact finder could make a particular finding on the administrative record then the finding is supported by substantial evidence holding that railbanking agreement precluded finding of abandonment holding on allegation of separate violation that eight violations of particular covenant in total of 56 properties 1428 supported finding of abandonment of restrictive covenant