Douglas Black and Robin Black as Trustees of the Black Family Trust v. David Chilcote, Ashley Chilcote and Mary King F/K/A Mary Cox, 11-13-00309-CV

In 1958 Bennett and Forbess, Inc. filed the Oakdale Acres First Extension plat in Brownwood showing streets, lots, and an area labeled "Park and Recreation Area." The plat included dedicatory language stating: "The streets as shown by said plat attached are hereby dedicated to public use forever."
Appellants (Douglas and Robin Black, trustees) purchased parcel(s) in the subdivision in 2010; their deed referenced the plat and the "Park and Recreation Area." They later fenced the labeled park area, posted no-trespassing signs, and restricted access to a lake within the area.
Appellees (David Chilcote, Ashley Chilcote, Mary King) sued for declaratory relief, breach of contract, trespass, and injunctive relief, asserting the park area was dedicated to the public and they had a right to use the lake.
Appellees moved for traditional summary judgment asserting the filed plat and subsequent sales (lots sold with reference to the plat) effected an implied public dedication of the park area; the trial court granted the motion, declared the area publicly dedicated, and permanently enjoined Appellants from interfering.
On appeal the Eleventh Court reviewed whether Appellees conclusively proved an implied dedication (intent, manifestation, acceptance) and reversed, holding summary judgment was improper because the evidence did not conclusively establish dedication to the public.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plat and subsequent lot sales established an implied public dedication of the "Park and Recreation Area"	The plat labeled an area "Park and Recreation Area" and lots were sold with reference to the plat; this constituted irrevocable dedication to public use	The dedicatory language on the plat expressly dedicated only streets; omission of parks from the dedication defeats a conclusive finding of implied dedication	Reversed: Appellees did not conclusively prove implied dedication as a matter of law; summary judgment improper

City of Brownsville v. West, 149 S.W.2d 1034 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1941) (omission of park from plat dedication supports finding no intent to dedicate park)
Anderson v. Tall Timbers Corp., 378 S.W.2d 16 (Tex. 1964) (plat language dedicating streets but not easement areas precludes public dedication of those areas)
Baywood Estates Prop. Owners Ass’n v. Caolo, 392 S.W.3d 776 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012) (dedication language limited to streets/roads does not prove park dedication as a matter of law)
Fudge v. Hogge, 323 S.W.2d 663 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1959) (lack of dedication language for lakesite weighed against public dedication)
Sanborn v. City of Amarillo, 93 S.W. 473 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1906) (holding that sale of lots referencing a plat showing a park can effect public dedication where dedication language is absent)
Maisen v. Maxey, 233 S.W.2d 309 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1950) (physical improvements, owner representations, and other evidence can establish dedication despite limited plat language)
Panther Creek Ventures, Ltd. v. Collin Cent. Appraisal Dist., 234 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (elements of dedication: intent, manifestation, and acceptance)
Lindner v. Hill, 691 S.W.2d 590 (Tex. 1985) (implied dedication is generally a fact question requiring clear and unequivocal intent)