John A. Lance, Debra L. Lance, F.D. Franks and Helen Franks v. Judith and Terry Robinson, Gary and Brenda Fest, Virginia Gray and Butch Townsend, 04-14-00758-CV

Background

Dispute over a .282-acre tract of Medina Lake shoreline (below Elevation 1084) adjacent to the Redus Point subdivision; the tract lies outside lot 8 and within lands conveyed in 1917 to Medina Valley Irrigation Company (MVICO), successor Bexar‑Medina‑Atascosa Counties Water Control & Improvement District No. 1 (BMA).
Plaintiffs (Robinson, Fest, Gray, Townsend, Sam Pride) claim an express easement reserved in a 1917 Spettle deed granting the grantors and their heirs/assigns rights to use and enjoy the reservoir and construct improvements on the reservoir edge; Plaintiffs are successors in interest to those grantors.
Defendants (Franks originally, then Lances) recorded a deed without warranty (DWW) purporting to convey the .282 acre to the Lances; Franks admitted he had no title to the tract before creating the DWW.
After recording the DWW the Lances fenced the area, posted no-trespassing signs, and attempted to exclude Plaintiffs from docks/ramps/deck; Plaintiffs obtained a temporary injunction and later moved for partial summary judgment.
Trial court (Judge Williams) granted summary judgment declaring Plaintiffs’ easement rights and that the DWW conveyed no interest and constituted a cloud on Plaintiffs’ easement; attorney’s fees were later awarded (Judge Emerson) to Plaintiffs and BMA; Defendants appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity and scope of the 1917 Spettle easement	Spettle reserved an express, appurtenant easement running with the dominant estate to use/reside on lands conveyed to MVICO; Plaintiffs are successors and have an easement over the .282 acre	The Spettle deed is allegedly void/insufficiently descriptive or not in Plaintiffs’ chain of title so easement is invalid	Court sustained: easement valid, sufficiently described (tied to Elevation 1084), appurtenant, and runs with the land; Plaintiffs entitled to declaratory relief and injunction on easement use
Effect of the Deed Without Warranty (DWW)	DWW is a nullity because Franks had no title to convey; the DWW was used to create appearance of ownership and thus clouds Plaintiffs’ easement and supports Chapter 12 claims	DWW is at most a quitclaim/without-warranty instrument and cannot be a cloud on an easement; allegedly title remains disputed and trespass-to-try-title should have been required	Court held DWW conveyed no interest (nullity), constituted a cloud/burden on Plaintiffs’ easement, and summary judgment on that issue was proper; trespass-to-try-title not required where easement owner seeks injunctive/declaratory relief
Standing to challenge the DWW / who may seek relief to set aside deed	Plaintiffs (easement holders) and BMA (record owner) are aggrieved; easement holders can seek declaratory/injunctive relief and Chapter 12 relief	Defendants argued only a defrauded grantor can seek to set aside a deed; Plaintiffs lack standing	Court and prior appellate panel recognized easement holders have standing under Chapter 12 and to seek relief; Nobles/Lopez distinctions addressed and Plaintiffs’ standing upheld
Attorney’s fees under the Declaratory Judgment Act and reasonableness	Plaintiffs/BMA sought fees for declaratory relief, invalidating DWW, and defending easement; introduced billing records and testimony supporting fees	Defendants argued fees were excessive, inadequately supported, and relief was essentially trespass-to-try-title so fees improper	Trial court’s fee award upheld: Defendants waived many trial-level challenges; evidence legally and factually sufficient and fee award was equitable and within court’s discretion

Key Cases Cited

City of San Antonio v. Earnest, 188 S.W.2d 775 (Tex. 1945) (fraudulent deed may be an absolute nullity and need not be "set aside" via trespass-to-try-title when it conveys no legal effect)
Drye v. Eagle Rock Rd., 364 S.W.2d 196 (Tex. 1962) (describing easement characteristics, dominant and servient estates, and enforcement against interference)
City of Mission v. Popplewell, 294 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. 1956) (easement is non-possessory; injunctive relief, not trespass-to-try-title, is proper remedy for interference)
Wilhoite v. Sims, 401 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (addressing the distinction between void/voidable deeds and proper procedures where title is not the central issue; declaratory relief appropriate)
Gordon v. West Houston Trees, Ltd., 352 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011) (quiet title and declaratory relief appropriate to challenge a quitclaim deed that purported to convey an interest the grantor did not have)
Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (standard on awarding attorney's fees and trial court's broad discretion in fee determinations)