BSG Spencer Highway Joint Venture and Best Storage Group, L.L.C. v. Muniba Enterprises, Inc.
01-15-01109-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 1, 2017Background
- Two contiguous commercial parcels (Parcel 1 — Muniba; Parcel 2 — later BSG) were subject to a 1994 Declaration of Restrictions and two amendments that included a reciprocal easement for ingress/egress, parking requirements, a "no-build area," a non-waiver clause, and an attorney-fees provision.
- Paragraph 6 granted Parcel 1 a perpetual non-exclusive easement "upon, over and across those portions of Parcel 2 which are from time to time developed for ingress and egress" to provide "uninterrupted access" to Center Street and Spencer Highway; the site plan (Exhibit A) showed curb cuts, driveways, parking, and a no-build area.
- BSG purchased Parcel 2 in 2013, redeveloped it as self-storage, removed a gas station, added a canopy that encroached the driveway, closed one curb cut, proposed a fence and an additional building, and BSG’s plans altered historic circulation.
- Muniba sued for declaratory relief and breach, seeking to enforce the easement and to enjoin obstructions; trial court issued an injunction preventing fence construction and interference with a northeasterly driveway and later entered a final judgment declaring and defining the easement and awarding attorney’s fees to Muniba.
- The trial court found (inter alia) the Declaration valid and enforceable, imposed a straight, unobstructed, 28-foot-wide line-of-sight easement from Spencer Highway to Parcel 1, ruled Muniba’s parking/dumpsters on Parcel 2 breached the Declaration but denied BSG injunctive relief, and awarded attorney’s fees to Muniba.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Muniba) | Defendant's Argument (BSG) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of express easement under Statute of Frauds / Statute of Conveyances | Declaration and site plan adequately identify the burdened tract and intended easement; easement is susceptible to reasonable construction | Description is too vague (no dimensions/route), so easement fails statute of frauds and conveyances | Court: easement is enforceable; legal descriptions and site plan furnish reasonable certainty; statute of frauds satisfied |
| Scope / location / permanence of easement (straight, unobstructed, 28-ft line-of-sight) | Muniba: historic, functional use supports broad/unrestricted access across developed portions; site plan and language support practical access | BSG: grant permits relocating easement "from time to time" and does not mandate a straight, immovable, 28-ft route; court overreached by adding terms | Court: rejected requirement that easement cover entire parcel; but trial court erred in imposing a rigid straight, line-of-sight, 28-ft immovable route — that relief vacated and remanded |
| Prior breaches by Muniba (parking/dumpsters) and BSG's request for injunctive relief against Muniba | Muniba argued historical parking/use and acquiescence justified its conduct; non-waiver clause limits waiver claims | BSG: Muniba repeatedly parked/dumped on Parcel 2 in breach; prior material breach bars Muniba’s contract claim and supports injunctive relief | Court: Muniba’s parking/dumpsters breached the Declaration (prior material breach), so Muniba cannot recover on its breach claim; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying BSG a permanent injunction given equities and long-standing use, so BSG’s injunction claim was denied |
| Attorney’s fees under Declaration (prevailing party) | Muniba: prevailed on declaratory relief and awarded fees | BSG: should be prevailing party on breaches and denied fees | Court: both parties prevailed on different main issues; affirmed award to Muniba ($54,800 + expenses) but held BSG also entitled to its claimed fees ($39,582.50); remanded/modified accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295 (Tex. 1994) (bench-trial findings of fact in jury-equivalent posture and applicable sufficiency standards)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (review of conclusions of law de novo in bench trials; scope of appellate review)
- Pick v. Bartel, 659 S.W.2d 636 (Tex. 1983) (easement is an interest in land subject to the Statute of Frauds)
- Marcus Cable Assocs., L.P. v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. 2002) (contract terms given plain, ordinary meaning when not defined)
- West Beach Marina, Ltd. v. Erdeljac, 94 S.W.3d 248 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (if easement description supplies a framework, parol evidence may fill in details; uncertain easements may survive if reasonably susceptible to construction)
- Hubert v. Davis, 170 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2005) (restrictive covenant language sufficed to create express easement)
- Dobbins v. Redden, 785 S.W.2d 377 (Tex. 1990) (a party in prior material breach cannot recover for the other party’s subsequent breach)