Hector Estrada, Isela Estrada, Maria Martinez, and Jorge Gonzales v. Daner Lee Cheshire and Lyndon Charles Cheshire
470 S.W.3d 109
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Estrada et al. sued to establish title to the northern portion of Tract 2 (Disputed Property) in Harris County, after a deed from Van Gundy failed to convey that portion.
- Cecil Cheshire owned the Disputed Property; after his death in 1983, his will left the entire estate to Mary Cheshire.
- Mary Cheshire’s 1984 deed to the Van Gundys conveyed only Tract 1 and the southern portion of Tract 2, excluding the Disputed Property.
- In 2002, Van Gundy conveyed Tract 2 to the Estrada parties (and Tract 1 to them as well) via an earnest-money contract; the deed, however, described only the southern portion of Tract 2, not the Disputed Property.
- Van Gundy and Mercedes Van Gundy paid taxes on the entire property and fenced Tract 2 during their ownership; 2005 probate proceedings granted Mary’s heirs, Lyndon and Daner Cheshire, ownership of Mary’s estate; Estrada discovered the title defect in 2010 and filed suit in 2012; trials led to a ruling denying adverse possession, which the court subsequently reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Estrada established title by adverse possession | Estrada relied on 10- and 25-year statutes, open and notorious use, tax payments, and transfer of possession | Disputed Property never conveyed to Estrada and estate ownership remained with Cecil/Mary's heirs | Estrada established title by adverse possession under both statutes |
| Whether the 25-year adverse possession presumption applies | Van Gundys and Estrada paid taxes and openly possessed the land for over 25 years | Possession alone without proper depiction of boundaries defeats the presumption | Presumption supported by long, open, adverse possession with tax payments; title awarded to Estrada |
| Who owns the Disputed Property under probate and deeds | Cecil’s estate passed the Disputed Property to Mary; Mary’s heirs Daner and Lyndon held record ownership | Disputed Property remained in Cecil’s estate; deeds did not convey it | Mary’s will passed title to her heirs; Disputed Property not in prior deeds; Estrada may prevail by adverse possession |
| Did trial court err in denying adverse possession | Evidence showed clearing, mowing, gates, drainage, taxes, and possession since 2002 | Trial court found lack of cultivation and hostile possession failed | Trial court’s adverse-possession findings reversed; Estrada’s title via adverse possession established |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (no-evidence review standard; states keystone for sufficiency decisions)
- BMC Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (de novo review of legal conclusions from facts)
- Rhodes v. Cahill, 802 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1990) (adverse possession framework and hostilty requirements)
- Tran v. Macha, 213 S.W.3d 913 (Tex. 2006) (hostile intent and assertion of claim of ownership)
- Kazmir v. Benavides, 288 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (adverse possession standard; need for visible assertion of ownership)
- Parker v. McGinnes, 842 S.W.2d 357 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (hostile possession and boundary determination)