Nac Tex Hotel Co., Inc. v. Stephen Greak, Individually, Dee Winston, Individually and E & G Investments, a General Partnership
12-14-00260-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 7, 2015Background
- Nac Tex Hotel Co., Inc. (Appellant) sued to try title to a 0.054-acre tract located between a KFC and a Valero, alleging adverse possession under Texas law.
- Appellant (through predecessor and employee Parmalee) had possessed and used the disputed strip, built a bridge, and believed it owned the tract since acquiring adjacent property in the 1980s.
- Trial by jury (June 2014) found Appellant did not possess the tract adversely for 10- or 25-year statutory periods, found bad faith, and awarded attorneys’ fees to defendants.
- The trial court entered judgment for defendants; on appeal this Court removed the bad-faith finding and attorneys’ fees but otherwise affirmed.
- Appellant files this motion for rehearing, arguing the Court erred: (1) evidence showed the requisite intent to claim the land for the ten-year adverse-possession statute, and (2) there was no 2007 offer from Temple that could toll or interrupt the limitations period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellant possessed the tract adversely for the 10-year statutory period | Appellant (Parmalee) intended to claim the tract; belief she already owned it satisfies claim-of-right requirement even if mistaken | Defendants argue possession lacked hostile intent and therefore cannot start the limitations period | Court affirmed that Appellant did not meet the 10-year adverse-possession requirement (motion seeks rehearing) |
| Whether an alleged 2007 offer to sell by Temple prevented accrual of the 10-year period | No 2007 offer occurred; even if it had, Appellant’s 10-year period already ran by 1998 | Defendants contend Appellant had opportunity to purchase and therefore lacked hostile claim | Appellant maintains statute ran; record shows only a 2012 offer to sell for $25,000 (Court treated opportunity to purchase as relevant to hostile intent) |
| Whether Parmalee’s testimony ("wouldn’t take anything from Temple") is a judicial admission negating hostile intent | That statement, in context, referred to theft, not abandonment of an adverse claim; multiple testimonies show she believed she owned the tract and intended to claim it | Defendants treat the statement as evidence of lack of hostile intent | Appellant argues the statement is misconstrued; Court nonetheless found insufficient hostile intent for adverse possession |
| Relation to prior precedent (claim-of-right where claimant mistakenly believes title) | Appellant relies on Calfee v. Duke: claim-of-right plus visible possession suffices even if mistaken about title | Defendants distinguish facts or emphasize other evidence contradicting claim-of-right | Appellant argues Calfee supports reversal; Court, however, did not adopt that outcome in its opinion and motion requests rehearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Calfee v. Duke, 544 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1976) (a claimant’s honest claim of right coupled with visible, exclusive possession can satisfy adverse-possession intent even if claimant is mistaken about title)