426 S.W.3d 800
Tex. App.2014Background
- In 1979 Royal Stoner conveyed two tracts (800-acre and 25-acre) and granted a non-exclusive 20-foot easement for ingress and egress across adjacent Stoner Ranch land to benefit the conveyed tracts.
- Royal initially put up a low fence with a gap gate at the easement start; from 1996–2000 a high fence was erected on the Stoner Ranch for game management (to retain deer) and did not enclose the entire ranch.
- The 800-acre tract was later sold to Double Knobs Mountain Ranch, Inc.; in 2011 Double Knobs asserted its easement rights and litigation followed when appellants (owners of Stoner Ranch parcels) claimed adverse possession of the easement.
- At bench trial the court found the express easement valid and entered judgment for appellees; appellants appealed arguing (1) the easement was void under the Statute of Frauds for uncertainty, (2) appellees waived easement by necessity, and (3) appellants acquired the easement by adverse possession (and were not estopped by references to the easement in later deeds).
- Trial evidence included competing surveyor testimony, aerial photographs, testimony about the gap gate and ranch road, and testimony that the high fence was built for game management rather than to exclude easement holders.
Issues
| Issue | Appellants' Argument | Appellees' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the express easement is void under the Statute of Frauds for uncertainty | Easement cannot be located with reasonable certainty so writing is void | Deed description (water reservoir, existing ranch road, gap gate) and surveyor/aerial evidence locate easement with reasonable certainty | Court held easement description was sufficiently certain and not void under Statute of Frauds |
| Whether appellees waived or lost the easement by necessity or implication | (Alternate) If express easement void, an easement by necessity would be implied and appellees waived it | Appellees relied on express easement validity; court did not reach implied necessity because express easement upheld | Court declined to address implied easement because express easement was valid |
| Whether appellants acquired the easement by 10-year adverse possession (designed enclosure / grazing theory) | High fence and long nonuse established designed enclosure and adverse possession | Fence was for game management, did not enclose land of another or encompass entire ranch; lacked grazing/use to support adverse claim | Court held evidence did not conclusively establish designed enclosure or adverse possession |
| Whether appellants gave sufficient repudiation/claim of right to constitute adverse possession despite not being co-tenants | Fence alone (blocking access) was sufficient notice of hostile claim; repudiation not required | Easement-holders have nonpossessory rights; repudiation standard analogous to cotenants applies; no clear claim of right or verbal assertion; fence erected for game management, not to claim easement | Court held appellants failed to show requisite claim of right/repudiation; fence and conduct insufficient to establish adverse possession |
Key Cases Cited
- West Beach Marina, Ltd. v. Erdeljac, 94 S.W.3d 248 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002) (Statute of Frauds—writing must allow land to be identified with reasonable certainty)
- Morrow v. Shotwell, 477 S.W.2d 538 (Tex. 1972) (description must furnish means to identify land with reasonable certainty)
- Vinson v. Brown, 80 S.W.3d 221 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002) (exact location unnecessary if tract burdened by easement is sufficiently identified)
- Orsborn v. Deep Rock Oil Corp., 267 S.W.2d 781 (Tex. 1954) (designed enclosure/grazing principles for adverse possession)
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2008) (co-tenant repudiation principle; adverse possession limitations among holders of rights)
- Tran v. Macha, 213 S.W.3d 913 (Tex. 2006) (statutory definition of adverse possession requires visible appropriation and claim of right)
- Marcus Cable Assocs., L.P. v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. 2002) (easement-holder has nonpossessory rights distinct from strangers)
- Robinson Water Co. v. Seay, 545 S.W.2d 253 (Tex. Civ. App.-Waco 1976) (private easement subject to loss by statute where grantees openly claim enclosed area and assert ownership)