Etan Industries, Inc. v. Lehmann
359 S.W.3d 620
| Tex. | 2011Background
- Etan Industries challenges a two-year statute of limitations and contests a declaratory judgment against it.
- Lehmanns own two properties where Etan’s cable lines ran on Bluebonnet’s poles under joint-use/pole attachment agreements.
- Lehmanns learned in 2000 that a line was placed on their property and were informed a separate easement was required for Etan to use Bluebonnet’s poles.
- Krohn v. Marcus Cable Associates in 2002 suggested an electric utility easement could not be used by a cable company, prompting the Lehmanns to re-evaluate Etan’s rights.
- By 2002-2004 the Lehmanns obtained documentation showing Etan lacked an easement and that Bluebonnet required Etan to secure its own easements; Etan failed to provide such documentation.
- Steven and Ronald Lehmann filed suit in 2004; the Highway 290 claim resolved in favor of Etan; the Highway 77 claim involved trespass and fraudulent misrepresentation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fraudulent concealment tolls the limitations period. | Lehmanns contend Etan’s misrepresentation tolled time. | Etan argues concealment does not extend limitations indefinitely and ends when discovery would occur. | Fraudulent concealment tolling ends when discovery should occur; but here it ended by December 2002. |
| Whether the declaratory judgment claim was moot or improperly awarded. | Lehmanns assert declaratory relief was warranted to preempt future violations. | Etan argues there was no live controversy as lines were removed before trial. | Declaratory judgment awarded was moot and improper; no basis to issue or fees. |
| Whether the Lehmanns’ claims against Etan were time-barred by limitations. | Lehmanns argue tolling due to concealment maintained timely claims. | Etan maintains accrual and discovery facts show expiration by December 2004 or earlier. | Limitations barred the claims; estoppel ended in December 2002, suit filed after two years. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kerlin v. Sauceda, 263 S.W.3d 920 (Tex. 2008) (fraudulent concealment tolling limited by discovery rule)
- Marshall, 342 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2011) (fraudulent concealment limitations defense considerations)
- Emerald Oil & Gas Co. v. BP Am. Prod. Co., 348 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. 2011) (limitations begin when injury or conduct is known)
- P.P.G. Indus., Inc. v. JMB/Houston Centers Partners Ltd. P’ship, 146 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2004) (limitations start on discovery of injury)
- Borderlon v. Peck, 661 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. 1983) (estoppel ends when facts prompt reasonable inquiry)
- BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Marshall, 342 S.W.3d 59 (Tex. 2011) (controls tolling and discovery analysis under concealment theories)
- Krohn v. Marcus Cable Assocs., L.P., 201 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App.-Waco 2006) (declaratory relief and practical consequences in cable easement disputes)
- Marcus Cable Assocs., L.P. v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. 2002) (easement scope limits utility-cable arrangements)
- Md. Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270 (1941) (ultimate standard quoted on declaratory relief necessity)