Severance v. Patterson, 370 S.W.3d 705

Severance purchased three West Beach parcels on Galveston Island in 2005; no public easement was proven on her Kennedy Drive parcel prior to the dispute.
A 1975 Hill judgment encumbered a public beach seaward of Severance’s property but did not include Kennedy Drive; Rita (2005) shifted vegetation landward, placing part of her property onto the dry beach.
The Open Beaches Act (OBA) does not create easements but enforces public rights where easements exist by prescription, dedication, or continuous public use; it does not grant new rights absent proof or compensation.
Luttes v. State defined the landward boundary of state-owned beaches at the mean high tide line, establishing public trust boundaries and distinguishing wet (state-owned) vs. dry (potentially private) beach.
Texas historically recognizes rolling easements that migrate with gradual shoreline movement, but avulsive (sudden) changes do not automatically roll easements onto previously unencumbered land.
The Court held Texas does not recognize a rolling easement that automatically encumbers private dry beach after avulsive events, though existing rolling easements may be enforced under traditional means with compensation when due.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Texas recognizes a rolling public beach easement	Severance argues rolling easement by custom/common law binds her land without new proof.	Texas contends no rolling easement exists absent proof under common law or the Open Beaches Act.	Texas does not recognize a rolling easement as an automatic landward migration without proof.
Source of public beachfront easements	Rolling easements arise from common law doctrine of public use or from custom.	OBA codifies but does not create new public easements; preexisting common-law rights govern.	Public beachfront easements arise from common law (prescription, dedication, or continuous public use) consistent with OBA.
Whether enforcement of rolling easements requires compensation	Enforcement of a rolling easement that burdens private land after avulsion should trigger compensation.	Enforcement does not constitute a taking if based on preexisting easement and public rights.	No compensation is owed for enforcing a preexisting rolling easement where valid under law; takings not established absent a taking.

Luttes v. State, 324 S.W.2d 167 (Tex. 1958) (established mean high tide boundary and public trust boundaries for Gulf beaches)
Seaway Co. v. Att’y Gen., 375 S.W.2d 923 (Tex. Civ. App. 1964) (public easements and boundaries on West Beach; implied dedication/prescription analysis)
Feinman v. State, 717 S.W.2d 106 (Tex.App.-Houston (1st Dist.) 1986) (rolling easement concept recognized by some Texas courts)
Matcha v. Mattox, 711 S.W.2d 95 (Tex.App.-Austin 1986) (public use evidence and migratory easement discussions; rolling concept discussed)
Arrington v. Tex. Gen. Land Office, 38 S.W.3d 764 (Tex.App.-Houston (14th Dist.) 2001) (easement moves with vegetation line; prescribes rolling easement concept)
Arrington v. Mattox, 767 S.W.2d 957 (Tex.App.-Austin 1989) (affirmed rolling/evolving easement boundaries with vegetation line shifts)
Moody v. White, 593 S.W.2d 372 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1979) (public use of dry beach and easement principles)
Seaway Co. v. Att’y Gen. (repeated), 375 S.W.2d 923 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston 1964) (public rights to use dry beach and easement law context)