State v. KNA Partners, a Texas Joint Venture
01-14-00723-CV
| Tex. App. | May 14, 2015Background
- KNA Partners owned property with nine curb cuts/driveways providing access to an abutting public roadway; TxDOT/State condemned part of the property and altered access.
- At trial the State’s counsel repeatedly described KNA’s access rights as an "easement appurtenant" and represented on the record that the State would restore all nine curb cuts.
- KNA introduced testimony and a land‑plan drawing (pre‑admitted without objection) showing the nine restored driveways and valuing the property with those accesses.
- The trial court’s judgment conditions passage of title on restoration of the driveways; KNA argues the State agreed to restoration and that the court relied on the State’s on‑the‑record statements.
- After judgment the State voluntarily rebuilt all nine driveways but did not expressly reserve appellate rights; KNA contends that action moots the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | KNA's Argument | Held/Position in Sur‑Reply |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the nine curb cuts/driveways are easements appurtenant | Driveways do not constitute easements appurtenant | Driveways are access easements appurtenant to abutting land (citing State v. Meyers and trial statements) | KNA: driveways are easements appurtenant; State’s trial counsel conceded that characterization |
| Whether the State’s on‑the‑record statements constitute an agreement/stipulation | No formal stipulation was made; restoration was not a contractual concession | Counsel’s unequivocal in‑court statements are an agreement/stipulation/concession under Rule 11 and case law | KNA: trial counsel’s representations are binding stipulations or concessions the court could consider |
| Whether payment/compensation is required before passage of title in condemnation | Payment of compensation must precede transfer but reconstruction need not be monetary compensation | Restoration of access ("in kind" compensation) can be part of adequate compensation if agreed to by owner | KNA: constitutional and Texas law require compensation before title vests; agreed restoration can satisfy compensation requirement |
| Whether the appeal is moot after the State rebuilt the driveways | Rebuilt driveways do not eliminate controversy because judgment conditions title on restoration | State voluntarily performed the restoration and did not reserve appellate rights; voluntary satisfaction moots the appeal | KNA: appeal is moot and should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because State voluntarily restored the driveways without reserving appeal rights |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Meyers, 403 S.W.2d 366 (Tex. 1966) (abutting owners’ right of access characterized as an easement appurtenant)
- St. Louis, A. & T. Ry. Co. v. Henderson, 24 S.W. 381 (Tex. 1893) (title does not vest in condemnor until payment is made)
- Employees Finance Co. v. Lathram, 369 S.W.2d 927 (Tex. 1963) (voluntary satisfaction of a judgment by debtor typically moots the appeal)
- Gen. Land Office of Tex. v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. 1990) (courts cannot decide moot controversies)
- Miga v. Jensen, 96 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. 2002) (paying a judgment without expressing intent to appeal normally waives the appeal)
- Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Martinez, 800 S.W.2d 331 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1990) (attorney’s courtroom concessions may be treated as stipulations)
- Camarena v. Texas Employment Comm’n, 754 S.W.2d 149 (Tex. 1988) (mootness doctrines and limits on advisory opinions)