Inside the Long Legal Fight Over Apartments Near Seagoville North Elementary
The City has already repealed the ordinances at the center of the fight. The lawsuit itself remains open.
A lawsuit over apartment zoning near Seagoville North Elementary School is moving toward its final chapter. The case has run more than two and a half years through Dallas County court.
Seagoville has already repealed the four ordinances at the center of the fight. But the lawsuit itself remains open on the court docket.
Case Snapshot
| Case Name | Seagoville Residents Association v. City of Seagoville and Target Builders LLC |
|---|---|
| Cause Number | DC-23-20340 |
| Court | 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County |
| Filed | December 6, 2023 |
| Property at Issue | 9.45 acres on Seagoville Road, No Name Street and Cain Road |
| Status as of Sept. 1, 2026 | OPEN |
The Property at the Center of the Dispute
The dispute centers on 9.45 acres near Seagoville Road, No Name Street and Cain Road. City planning records tie two ordinances directly to the site.
Ordinance 11-2022 and Ordinance 33-2023 created a Planned Development for an apartment complex there. The location matters. The property sits across Seagoville Road from Seagoville North Elementary School.
The Four Ordinances Involved
| Ordinance | What It Did |
|---|---|
| 11-2022 | Rezoned the property from residential and duplex use to apartment use |
| 33-2023 | Created the Planned Development for the apartment project |
| 26-2023 | Allowed multifamily buildings up to three stories or 45 feet |
| 27-2023 | Changed Planned Development rules, including minimum acreage |
How the Lawsuit Unfolded
The case moved through Dallas County court in stages. The table below traces the major filings and City Council actions.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Dec. 6, 2023 | Seagoville Residents Association files the lawsuit |
| Jan. 22, 2024 | City Council meets privately with its attorney about the case |
| Dec. 16, 2024 | Association files a brief opposing the defendants’ summary judgment motions |
| Oct. 31, 2025 | Motion for continuance and notice of substitution of counsel filed |
| Dec. 30, 2025 | Planning and Zoning Commission recommends repealing all four ordinances |
| Feb. 2, 2026 | City Council repeals the ordinances; property returns to R-5 zoning |
| Apr. 27, 2026 | Association files a motion to strike and a reply to the dismissal motion |
| May 4, 2026 | Association objects to dismissal and asks for a trial on attorney fees |
| Jun. 8, 2026 | City still lists the case as pending litigation |
| Jul. 13, 2026 | Council authorizes execution of an agreement discussed in closed session |
| Aug. 24, 2026 | Patricia Rasmussen tells the council $35,000 in fees was awarded |
Residents Raise Procedural Concerns
The Seagoville Residents Association argued the City skipped required steps. Members pointed to state law under Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government Code.
Edward and Patricia Rasmussen were prominent voices in the dispute. Edward Rasmussen told the council about a meeting in February 2026.
He said he and his wife met with City staff on November 1, 2023. He said a required zoning sign on Seagoville Road had been blocked by vegetation. He also said a second sign was never placed on Cain Street.
City Reverses Course: Ordinances Repealed
The council repealed all four ordinances on February 2, 2026. Ordinance 2026-23 undid Ordinance 11-2022 and Ordinance 33-2023.
The property returned to R-5 residential and duplex zoning. The council also repealed Ordinance 26-2023 and Ordinance 27-2023, restoring prior rules on building height and Planned Developments.
The Fight Over Attorney’s Fees
Once the ordinances were repealed, the City argued the case was largely moot. The association did not agree to a quiet exit.
The association asked the court to schedule a trial on attorney fees on May 4, 2026. That filing kept the case alive even after the zoning dispute ended.
Where the Case Stands Today
Current Status: Open
As of September 1, the public court index still lists DC-23-20340 as open. The council authorized execution of an agreement discussed in closed session on July 13, 2026, but the full terms were not read into the public record.
The zoning fight appears resolved. The legal cleanup does not.
What Comes Next
Two documents will likely settle the remaining questions. One is the agreement authorized July 13. The other is the final dismissal or judgment expected from the 134th District Court.
Those records should show whether fees were paid. They should also show which party covers what amount.
Until then, the property remains under R-5 zoning. And the court case remains open.
