Marin Real Estate Partners, L.P. v. Vogt
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 9259
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Vogts own 19-acre tract and a 0.911-acre adjacent lot; the deed to the one-acre tract includes a 20-foot ingress/egress easement essential for access.
- Trada Partners VI, LP purchased adjoining property and planned a development that affected the Vogts' easement; Marin Real Estate Partners and others later acquired interests in parts of the development.
- Vogts sued for encroachment of the development on their easement, surface water diversion, and malicious prosecution; a Rule 11 agreement acknowledged Vogt ownership of the easement and Vogts’ right to repair and maintain it.
- Trada Partners built structures and raised the easement area; encroachments continued after Marin acquired portions of the development, leading to injunction and damages litigation.
- A temporary injunction was granted in 2006; on appeal, law-of-the-case arguments arose regarding irreparable harm; a 2009 jury trial awarded damages and the court issued a permanent injunction removing encroachments.
- Trada Partners defaulted in 2009; Vogts’ claims against Marin proceeded to trial; verdicts awarded damages and Marin challenges on multiple legal theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Injunctive relief: law-of-the-case vs. new evidence for permanent injunction | Vogts argue injunction proper based on irreparable harm; prior law-of-the-case does not bar permanent relief | Marin asserts law-of-the-case prohibits further injunctive relief | Law-of-the-case does not bar permanent injunction; evidence supports injunctive relief |
| Double recovery: past loss of use damages and permanent injunction | Damages for loss of use plus injunction do not constitute future damages | Could constitute improper double recovery | No double recovery; past damages plus injunction permitted when no future damages are awarded |
| Admissibility of expert testimony (Godsey) on surface-water diversion | Godsey’s testimony reliable and foundational | Some aspects speculative about culvert causation | Godsey’s testimony on elevation-driven diversion admissible; culvert-related opinions deemed speculative but not fatal to overall causation |
| Admissibility of expert testimony (Marquardt) on damages | Marquardt’s diminution-in-value analysis appropriate under permanent damages | Methodology and USPAP compliance challenged | Marquardt’s testimony admissible; highest-and-best-use analysis permissible in this context |
| Malicious prosecution: sufficiency of evidence for procurement, innocence, probable cause, and malice | Evidence shows Marin’s agents provided false information to authorities to prosecute Vogt | Prosecution legitimate; presumed probable cause | Sufficient evidence for procurement, innocence, probable cause rebuttal, and malice; jury findings supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Wichita Falls v. Bruner, 191 S.W.2d 912 (Tex. Civ. App. Fort Worth 1945) (no election of remedies; injunction and permanent damages not double recovery when no future damages)
- Allen v. Va. Hill Water Supply Corp., 609 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. Civ. App.-Tyler 1980) (owner liable for removal of encroachment even if not builder of encroaching structure)
- Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mendez, 204 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. 2006) (standards for admissibility of expert testimony; reliability grounding)
- Pollock, City of San Antonio v., 284 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2009) (concerning when expert testimony challenges do not require objections to preserve error)
- Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for sufficiency review in evidentiary sufficiency context)
- Schröder v. Bates, 147 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. 2004) (double recovery doctrine in injunctions and damages; future damages required for true double recovery)
- Waite Hill Seros., Inc. v. World Class Metal Works, Inc., 959 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. 1998) (one satisfaction rule; prohibition on double recovery)
- Richey v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 952 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. 1997) (malicious prosecution elements and proof standards)
- Suberu v. Kroger Tex. Ltd. P’ship, 216 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. 2006) (probable cause and malice considerations in malicious prosecution)
- Bates, Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc. v., 147 S.W.3d 264 (Tex. 2004) (future effects and limitations on injunctive relief and damages)