B&P Development, LLC and Chad H. Foster Jr. v. Knighthawk, LLC, Series G
04-15-00575-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 15, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Knighthawk, LLC, Series G sued B&P Development, LLC and Chad H. Foster, Jr. over the true boundary between two adjacent Val Verde County tracts and alleged improper use/occupancy of Knighthawk's land.
- Competing surveys were at issue: the Martinez Survey (2007) and the Rothe/Trent surveys (2012, 1966). The jury was asked which survey correctly located the boundary.
- The jury returned a verdict adopting the Martinez Survey as the true boundary and awarded Knighthawk damages for past and future improper use/occupancy and interest.
- Judgment (signed June 25, 2015) awarded Knighthawk $120,000 (past use), $130,000 (future use), pre‑judgment interest, post‑judgment interest, and $90,000 in attorneys’ fees; it also set conditional post‑judgment fee awards triggered by appellate and mandamus filings.
- The judgment declared B&P has no right, title, lien, estate, or interest in the land within the Martinez Survey; any existing encroachments by B&P on Knighthawk were deemed permissive and could remain until removed or agreed otherwise.
- The court awarded nothing on Knighthawk’s claims against Foster and denied Defendants’ counterclaims; Defendants filed post‑judgment motions and timely appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper location of boundary line | Martinez Survey accurately shows the boundary between tracts | Rothe (and earlier Trent) survey more accurate; Martinez incorrect | Jury found Martinez Survey correct; court entered judgment adopting Martinez Survey as boundary |
| Damages for use/occupancy (past & future) | Knighthawk sought compensation for past and future improper use of parcel | B&P contested liability/amounts | Jury awarded $120,000 (past) and $130,000 (future); judgment entered for those sums plus pre‑ and post‑judgment interest |
| Trespass and allocation of responsibility | Knighthawk asserted Defendants trespassed and sought trespass damages | Defendants denied or disputed trespass and damages; argued permissive encroachment or title defenses | Jury questions and damages instructions provided; judgment holds B&P has no title in disputed area and awarded monetary relief for improper use; existing encroachments labeled permissive |
| Defamation/publication claims against Foster | Knighthawk alleged defamatory statements about Foster (forgery, stealing land, falsifying records) | Foster defended, disputed falsity, malice, and damages | Judgment states Knighthawk takes nothing on its claims against Foster (no recovery on those claims) |
Key Cases Cited
- (No officially reported cases appear in the excerpt of the judgment and jury charge provided.)