Kings River Trail Ass'n v. Pinehurst Trail Holdings, L.L.C.
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 10738
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- Consolidated appeals concern Kings River associations vs Pinehurst over golf-property restrictions and adjacent trails on undeveloped acreage.
- Property included three nine-hole golf courses and about 85 undeveloped acres restricted to golf use; 53.075 acres were deed restricted for golf use.
- Associations and individual plaintiffs alleged they and their members owned adjacent parcels and had maintained greenbelt trails on the undeveloped acreage.
- Plaintiffs claimed adverse possession of portions of the undeveloped acreage and sought declaratory relief that the land is subject to a Golf Course Use Only restriction and that a 2009 amendment to a deed is invalid.
- Trial court granted Pinehurst’s no-evidence summary judgment on adverse-possession claims; other claims proceeded to a two-week jury trial.
- The court declined to award attorney’s fees under the Declaratory Judgments Act and later denied frivolous-appeal damages; appeals by associations and Pinehurst followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness and sufficiency of adverse-possession summary judgment | Associations contended they had asserted adverse-possession claims and evidence raised issues of fact. | Pinehurst argued no-evidence grounds attacked essential elements and were ripe. | No error; no-evidence grounds were ripe and supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether trial court erred granting no-evidence summary judgment on adverse-possession | Associations presented affidavits showing open use and exclusive possession of portions of Trails. | No evidence showed actual, visible appropriation with intent to possess. | Court upheld grant of no-evidence summary judgment for adverse-possession claims. |
| Declaratory relief: standing and merits to declare Golf Course Use Only restriction and invalidity of 2009 Amendment | Associations had standing to seek declarations based on their members’ interests. | Pinehurst urged lack of standing and that record did not conclusively prove entitlement to declaratory relief. | Associations have standing; but record deficiencies and partial-record issues prevented review of those declaratory- relief requests on appeal. |
| Declaratory Judgments Act: trial court’s denial of attorney’s fees | Pinehurst sought reasonable fees under §37.009 as equitable. | Trial court acted within discretion. | No abuse of discretion; fees not awarded. |
| Frivolous-appeal damages under Rule 45 | Associations’ appeal was not frivolous. | Appeal warranted damages for frivolousness. | Damages under Rule 45 not warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld, 34 S.W.3d 887 (Tex. 2000) (ripeness and liberal construction of pleadings)
- Tran v. Macha, 213 S.W.3d 913 (Tex. 2006) (adverse possession elements and exclusive use)
- Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C., 73 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2002) (no-evidence summary judgment standard)
- FM Props. Operating Co. v. City of Austin, 22 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2000) (standard for reviewing summary judgments when grounds are multiple)
- Segrest v. Segrest, 649 S.W.2d 610 (Tex. 1983) (reporter’s record not required for pure questions of law; Segrest discussed)
- Bennett v. Cochran, 96 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2002) (complete failure to file points or issues; record presumptions)
- Sam Houston Hotel, L.P. v. Mockingbird Restaurant, Inc., 191 S.W.3d 720 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (appellate record necessity when evidence referenced)
- W&F Transportation, Inc. v. Wilhelm, 208 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (partial-record review considerations)
- DeArman v. Surls, 618 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1981) (adverse-possession evidence in context)
- Chittim v. Auld, 219 S.W.2d 702 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1949) (adverse possession analysis contrasted)
- Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (Declaratory Judgments Act standards)
- United Interests, Inc. v. Brewington, Inc., 729 S.W.2d 897 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987) (attorney’s fees framework)
- Hearth Admins., Corp v. City of New York, 394 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2012) (public policy arguments rarely factor heavily into outcomes)