RDG PARTNERSHIP v. Long
350 S.W.3d 262
Tex. App.2011Background
- Long and the Jupe/RDG parcels are neighboring landowners in Atascosa County; a 2005 suit alleged encroachments on County Road 343 and related boundary disputes.
- A court-appointed surveyor Smyth analyzed the Simmons Subdivision boundaries to determine tract locations amid four contested areas: West Road Strip, Simmons Subdivision Road, South Road, and County Road 343.
- The jury found no Simmons Subdivision Road right-of-way; claims on other roads were partially adjudicated by summary judgment or jury verdicts, leading to cross-appeals.
- The trial court declared Long owned a 50-foot easement across the Jupes’ property; concluded South Road was not within that easement and Long had no prescriptive right to the South Road Strip.
- Long challenged standing to sue over County Road 343 encroachment; the Jupes challenged Smyth’s boundary analysis and various remedies, including fees and injunctive terms.
- The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment on all issues after reviewing evidentiary and procedural challenges and applying relevant property-easement and boundary law principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| West Road Strip title sufficiency | Jupes: Smyth unreliable for boundaries. | Long: Smyth methodologically sound. | Jupes' challenge rejected; Smyth sufficient. |
| Boundary by acquiescence submit-ability | Jupes seek jury on long-standing fence boundary. | No evidence of agreement fixing line; court properly refused. | No error; no evidence of acquiescence warranting submission. |
| Adverse possession no-evidence | Jupes relied on deeds/affidavits to show possession. | Evidence not properly before court; affidavit late; no scinitilla exists. | No-evidence MSJ upheld; adverse-possession claims fail. |
| Standing to challenge encroachment on County Road 343 | Long has property interest via 50-foot easement; standing to enforce road. | Trial court implicitly found no injury to Long’s interest. | Long has standing; implied findings support judgment. |
| South Road prescriptive rights | South Road Strip ownership or prescriptive rights existed. | Joint use defeats exclusive adverse use; no prescriptive easement. | No prescriptive right; joint use defeats adversity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coastal Transport Co. v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2004) (face-of-record and preservation rules for sufficiency challenges)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Marathon Oil Co., 152 S.W.2d 711 (Tex. 1941) (acquiescence boundary doctrine standards)
- Brooks v. Jones, 578 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. 1979) (prescriptive use requires hostility/adversity; exclusivity matters)
- Stein v. Killough, 53 S.W.3d 36 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2001) (private landowner standing to enforce public road dedication)
- Tran v. Macha, 213 S.W.3d 913 (Tex. 2006) (joint-use principle re prescriptive easements)