Judgment on Declaratory Judgment Claim In its final issue, Crimson complains that the trial court erred in entering a take-nothing summary judgment against it on Crimson’s “duty to defend” declaratory judgment claim rather than entering a declaratory summary judgment in Crimson’s favor. Crimson specifically asserts that its claim for a declaratory judgment on its “duty to defend” liability under the indemnity agreement presented an issue beyond that raised in appellees’ claims for which it would have “ongoing exposure under the indemnity portions of the Advisory Agreement” and thus a declaratory judgment on its duty to defend under the agreement would have been proper. See Indian Beach Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Linden, 222 S.W.3d 682, 702 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Declaratory judgments are reviewed under the
recognizing that the right to seek reformation of a deed is limited to the original parties to the deed and their successors in title holding that because the purchase price typically is not included in the deed this term of the contract of sale is not merged with the deed holding that a beneficiary under a deed of trust was entitled to reformation of the grantors deed holding merger by deed prohibits reformation when one of the parties learns of a mistake before closing and still signs the deed holding that declaratory judgment counterclaim seeking interpretation of deed restrictions filed in lawsuit regarding breach of deed restrictions was not simply denial of plaintiffs cause of action but affirmative claim for relief and therefore proper subject of declaratory judgment deed restrictions involved ongoing and continuous relationship between parties and declaration would define parties obligations under deed restrictions in future