in Re the Estate of William H. McNutt, 04-15-00110-CV

Decedent William H. McNutt owned a ranch with a foreman’s house; dispute centers on whether Sherry received an oral gift of the house and the necessary surrounding land.
This appeal arises after remand from an earlier appeal (court previously addressed an alleged gift of the northside of the ranch).
On remand the trial court awarded Sherry ownership (or rights) tied to the house; McNutt Ranch Entities (appellants) challenge those findings.
Appellants argue Sherry failed to prove any oral gift of the foreman’s house in 1983 and did not obtain jury findings on the elements needed to invoke the oral-gift-of-real-estate exception to the statute of frauds as to the plot of land necessary for full use of the house.
Appellants contend Sherry tried to re-litigate an already-decided claim (the 2000-acre northside gift) rather than submit the required findings on the “necessary plot” for the house; they seek reversal and rendition that Sherry take nothing.
Alternatively, if the court affirms ownership of the house, appellants request recognition of only an implied easement appurtenant limited to necessary access to water and the IH-10 access road.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sherry)	Defendant's Argument (McNutt Entities)	Held
Whether Sherry proved an oral gift of the foreman’s house	Sherry asserts Bill orally gifted the house (and/or necessary surrounding land) enabling her ownership/use	Appellants say Sherry did not prove an oral gift of the house in 1983 and never sought required findings on the necessary plot of land	Appellants argue court should reverse and render that Sherry take nothing (trial waived required findings)
Whether Sherry obtained required jury findings to invoke the oral-gift exception to the statute of frauds for the necessary plot of land	Sherry treated the house and plot as covered by oral-gift theory on remand	Appellants: Sherry refused to submit the “necessary plot” issue with required elements, waiving the claim	Appellants argue waiver; proper disposition is rendition for Question No. 2
Whether remand permitted re-litigation of the Northside (2000-acre) gift	Sherry pursued gift of the northside on remand	Appellants say northside gift was already decided against Sherry and she improperly retried it	Appellants assert court should not allow re-litigation; findings absent for necessary plot
If house ownership affirmed, scope of access rights	Sherry would need access for full use of the house	Appellants request only minimal easement necessary for access to water and IH‑10 road	Appellants request implied easement appurtenant limited to necessary access (if ownership upheld)

Clayton W. Williams, Jr., Inc. v. Olivo, 952 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. 1997) (failure to secure proper jury findings on a viable cause of action waives the claim)
Dynegy, Inc. v. Yates, 422 S.W.3d 638 (Tex. 2013) (proponent of an exception to the statute of frauds must obtain findings on the exception’s elements)
Drye v. Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc., 364 S.W.2d 196 (Tex. 1962) (implied easement appurtenant for necessary uses such as drainage, way, or water)
Bains v. Parker, 182 S.W.2d 397 (Tex. 1944) (unity of ownership and physical necessity support implied easement for access)