Haven Chapel United Methodist Church v. William Michael Leebron II, E.J. King, Brazoria County Commissioners Court, and Marlene Mouchette, 496 S.W.3d 893

Background

Property dispute over a 55.5-foot unbuilt platted strip called Milam Street (between Blocks 14 and 15 in East Columbia) recorded via a 1945 compiled "Map of Columbia." Brazoria County has not accepted it into its road maintenance system.
Haven Chapel United Methodist Church claims title (by deed or adverse possession) to adjacent lots and asserts the strip was never a road; William Leebron bought lots across the strip in 2010.
Church sued (2011) for declaratory and injunctive relief and alleged trespass/nuisance and federal religious-land-use claims; procedural delays followed and Leebron died in 2013.
County moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment (and Rule 91a dismissal of federal claims); trial court granted the County’s no-evidence SJ on Church’s claims and later granted a separate declaratory judgment that the strip is a platted public right-of-way.
The court of appeals affirmed the grant of no-evidence summary judgment (Church failed to produce evidence after extended time and a docket-control order) but reversed the declaratory judgment because the County failed to conclusively prove express or implied dedication and public acceptance.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to decide road status	Church argued the court lacked authority to decide road status because statutes are inapplicable/municipal authority lapsed	County argued district court may adjudicate declaratory disputes over dedicated roads	Court: District court had jurisdiction; issue overruled
No-evidence summary judgment (adequacy of discovery)	Church argued summary judgment was premature because County obstructed discovery and Church lacked time to obtain evidence	County argued ample time for discovery existed; Church agreed to deadlines and failed to timely serve or seek continuance	Court: Affirmed no-evidence SJ; Church waived continuance/affidavit and failed to present evidence
Declaratory judgment re: dedication (express or implied)	Church argued 1945 map is not original, lacks dedicatory language, and County did not show acceptance by public or county	County relied on 1945 Map and deeds referencing lots/streets to prove dedication and non-adversability	Court: Reversed declaratory judgment—County failed to conclusively prove express or implied dedication or public acceptance; remanded
Substitution and SJ for successor (Mouchette)	Church argued Mouchette was proper substitute for deceased defendant under rules and summary judgment improperly bifurcated issues	Mouchette argued she was not executor/administrator/heir and was an improper substitute; also statute-of-limitations defense	Court: Affirmed SJ for Mouchette—trial court did not err in finding she was not proper substitute; Church’s Rule 152 substitution failed

Key Cases Cited

Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (standard of review for summary judgment)
M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2000) (summary judgment evidence construed in favor of nonmovant)
Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (no-evidence SJ is pretrial directed verdict)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (evidentiary sufficiency and circumstantial evidence analysis)
Broussard v. Jablecki, 792 S.W.2d 535 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1990) (plat without dedicatory language does not conclusively establish dedication)
Miller v. Elliott, 94 S.W.3d 38 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2002) (recording a plat alone does not automatically create dedication)
Lindner v. Hill, 691 S.W.2d 590 (Tex. 1985) (implied dedication is question of fact)
Chappell Hill Bank v. Smith, 257 S.W.3d 320 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (county may abandon platted streets of nonfunctioning municipality)
Ellis v. Jansing, 620 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. 1981) (public dedication bars acquisition by adverse possession)