576 S.W.3d 802
Tex. App.2019Background
- Kenneth and Shannon Taylor (successors to Lester Strait) own the North 1/2 of Lot 15 in Meadowmere Acres; dispute concerns a 60-foot strip called the Torian Lane Strip and the 30-foot portion abutting the Taylors’ property (the Abutting 30’ Strip).
- Chain of title traces to James Torian: Torian (1949) → Yates deed (1963) conveying lots on both sides of an unrecorded plat showing “Torian Lane” (a 60' strip) → subsequent conveyances to Ely, Harbaugh, Strait, then Taylors; deeds reference Torian Lane and include “all appurtenances thereto” but some include “save & except any portion lying in a road.”
- Developer (Savannah Court) recorded the Torian Place Plat (2016), designating part of the Torian Lane Strip as Lot 6, Block 2, paved Torian Lane ending in a cul‑de‑sac short of the Taylors’ property, and thus cut off vehicular access to the Taylors.
- Strait (later the Taylors) sued for trespass to try title, quiet title, declaratory relief (claiming fee ownership to centerline of Abutting 30’ Strip and a private easement across the entire Torian Lane Strip), and to void the plat; defendants moved for summary judgment and were partially awarded fees; jury later awarded additional fees.
- The trial court held JMJ Properties owns the Abutting 30’ Strip and that the Taylors have an undefined right of passage over Torian Lane. Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding material fact issues in the chains of title and in application of the strip‑and‑gore and centerline presumptions (precluding summary judgment) and vacated fee awards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taylors hold fee simple title to the Abutting 30’ Strip (centerline/strip‑and‑gore) | Yates deed + common‑law presumptions (centerline & strip‑and‑gore) convey fee to centerline of Torian Lane to grantees, so Taylors own Abutting 30’ Strip | Yates deed did not convey the strip; Torian retained the strip or subsequently conveyed differently; quitclaim deeds to JMJ do not conclusively prove title | Reversed: fact issues in chain of title and missing instruments prevent applying presumptions as a matter of law; summary judgment improper |
| Whether Taylors have a defined private easement over entire Torian Lane Strip | Easement expressly or impliedly arises from Yates deed/unrecorded plat and subsequent references to Torian Lane as a public road; thus a defined private easement exists | Any right is at most an undefined right of passage; extent depends on title/recorded dedications and later conveyances/plat | Reversed: easement claim contingent on resolution of title; material fact issues remain |
| Whether the Torian Lane Dedication/Plat (Torian Place Plat) is void and whether plat divested fee | Plat improperly omitted Taylors’ interests and reallocated abutting strip into Lot 6 in developer’s plat; plat may be void as to their interests | Plat approval and subsequent construction dedicated or established public street; city acceptance matters; developer relied on plat | Reversed: validity of dedication/plat and its effect depend on the unresolved title questions and on factual determinations |
| Whether attorney’s fees award was proper/segregated | Fees awarded to defendants flowed from valid summary judgment and jury verdict | Fees were awarded but segregation and basis depend on underlying rulings | Reversed: because summary judgment is reversed, fee awards are vacated and remanded for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Cantley v. Gulf Prod. Co., 143 S.W.2d 912 (Tex. 1940) (articulating strip‑and‑gore presumption that narrow, nonuseful strips pass with conveyed land unless clearly reserved)
- Crawford v. XTO Energy, Inc., 509 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. 2017) (clarifying application of strip‑and‑gore and presumption favoring conveyance of narrow strips)
- Mitchell v. Bass, 26 Tex. 372 (Tex. 1862) (centerline presumption: land abutting a public highway passes to centerline absent clear reservation)
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (summary judgment standards requiring no genuine issue of material fact)
- City of Richland Hills v. Bertelsen, 724 S.W.2d 428 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1987, no writ) (acceptance of dedication creates public easement but does not necessarily divest the fee from the proprietor)