Dale Langston and Sue Langston v. Gary C. Yokum
07-20-00117-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- Dale and Sue Langston purchased Lot 24 (Hilltop Lakes, Section 24) in 1978; Gary Yokum purchased Lot 23 in 2000 but mistakenly occupied and improved Lot 24.
- Yokum maintained Lot 24 (mowing, signs) and began constructing a residence there in May 2007; house completed in 2008.
- The Langstons sued by trespass-to-try-title on March 23, 2017; Yokum counterclaimed adverse possession (10-year), laches, and estoppel and demanded an abstract of title under Tex. R. Civ. P. 791.
- The Langstons missed the initial Rule 791 deadline but later filed a Developer’s Dedication and a 1978 General Warranty Deed conveying Lot 24 to them.
- The trial court ruled for Yokum, divesting the Langstons; the court of appeals reversed, holding the Langstons hold fee simple title, rejecting Yokum’s adverse-possession, laches, and estoppel defenses, and remanding Yokum’s unjust-enrichment/mistaken-improvement claim under Tex. Prop. Code § 22.021.
- The appellate court awarded Yokum temporary possession pending resolution of the § 22.021 claim but rendered judgment declaring the Langstons the owners of Lot 24.
Issues
| Issue | Langston's Argument | Yokum's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did Langstons fail to prove title so Yokum should obtain title? | Langstons asserted they proved superior title from common source (Developer Dedication + 1978 warranty deed). | Yokum argued Langstons failed Rule 791/pleading proof requirements and thus lost on title. | Reversed trial court: Langstons proved superior title out of common source; Yokum could not prevail merely on plaintiffs’ alleged failure. |
| 2. Did Yokum acquire title by 10-year adverse possession? | Langstons: Yokum never had hostile, claim-of-right possession for 10 years; open/notorious possession began only with construction in 2007. | Yokum: maintained and improved the lot for years, establishing continuous adverse possession. | Reversed: Adverse possession fails — possession was not under a claim of right/hostile (mistaken belief he owned Lot 23); open/notorious possession began with construction in 2007 and suit was filed <10 years later. |
| 3. Are Langstons’ claims barred by laches? | Langstons: Laches is not a defense to a legal-title trespass-to-try-title suit. | Yokum: Delay in asserting rights and his reliance/changes in position justify laches. | Reversed: Laches unavailable where plaintiff’s right is legal title; defense fails. |
| 4. Are Langstons’ claims barred by equitable estoppel? | Langstons: No false representation or concealment by them; elements of estoppel not shown. | Yokum: Alleged Langstons’ delay/acquiescence warranted estoppel. | Reversed: No evidence of the five essential elements of equitable estoppel; defense fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martin v. Amerman, 133 S.W.3d 262 (Tex. 2004) (trespass-to-try-title requires plaintiff to prove strength of own title)
- Lance v. Robinson, 543 S.W.3d 723 (Tex. 2018) (trespass-to-try-title pleading and proof requirements are detailed and strict)
- Ramsey v. Grizzle, 313 S.W.3d 498 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010) (plaintiff must effectively disclose own title)
- Glover v. Union Pac. R.R., 187 S.W.3d 201 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006) (enumerating elements of adverse possession)
- BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Marshall, 342 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2011) (definition of adverse possession as actual and visible appropriation under claim of right)
- Rhodes v. Cahill, 802 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1990) (adverse possessor bears burden to prove every essential fact)
- Rogers v. Ricane Enterprises, Inc., 772 S.W.2d 76 (Tex. 1989) (laches is not a defense to a trespass-to-try-title suit based on legal title)