Brookshire Katy Drainage District v. Lily Gardens, LLC, 333 S.W.3d 301

Brookshire Katy Drainage District (District) holds express easements from 1962 across two tracts for constructing, maintaining, operating, repairing, and reconstructing a drainage canal, with ingress/egress rights limited to the right of way and existing roads; District later installed a ten-foot drainage ditch and a concrete bridge over it with two culverts beneath.
In 2004 Lily Gardens, LLC acquired three tracts including the easement lands and planned an outdoor venue; in 2006 Lily Gardens added a bridge covering atop the existing bridge, not touching the culverts.
District issued a cease-and-desist alleging the bridge covering encroached on the easement and interfered with drainage plans; Lily Gardens refused to remove it and District sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, trespass, and nuisance.
Trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants on all claims and awarded attorney’s fees to Defendants; order indicated the bridge covering did not encroach on the easement rights.
On rehearing, Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment for Defendants, holding no competent evidence showed easement violation or trespass, and addressing attorney’s fees under the Declaratory Judgments Act.
Conclusion: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in Defendants’ favor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the bridge covering violated the easement.	District argues the covering encroached and interfered with the easement.	Brookshire Katy contends the structure attached to an existing bridge did not touch the canal or culverts.	No violation; summary judgment proper for Defendants.
Whether Lily Gardens trespassed on District property.	District asserts ownership/right of possession and unauthorized entry via the structure.	Easement holder lacks ownership; entry not proven to be unauthorized.	Trespass claim fail; easement is nonpossessory and does not convey title.
Whether attorney’s fees under the Declaratory Judgments Act were proper.	District contends no fee should be awarded because no valid declaratory judgment was obtained.	Fees may be awarded under the Act even if not prevailing on a declaratory claim; discretion lies with trial court.	Fees upheld; discretion to award under §37.009 affirmed.

Marcus Cable Assocs. v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. 2002) (easement scope and implied rights governed by the grant terms)
Flynn v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 228 S.W.3d 653 (Tex. 2007) (easement is a nonpossessory interest; interpretation from instrument)
Still v. Eastman Chem. Co., 170 S.W.3d 851 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2005) (interference with easement requires showing use that impairs reasonable enjoyment)
Marcus Cable v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. 2002) (same as above; cited for scope of easements and impairment standards)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (no-evidence standard; standards for reviewing summary judgments)