The State of Texas and the Texas Department of Transportation v. Nico-Wf1, L.L.C.
384 S.W.3d 818
| Tex. | 2012Background
- NICO-WF1, L.L.C. owns a building fronting Arroyo Boulevard (FM 1847) in Los Fresnos; part of the building intrudes about ten feet into the boulevard’s 100-foot public right of way but not beyond the curb line, which is 15 feet inside the outer boundary.
- Arroyo Boulevard’s dedication in 1928 set 100-foot boundaries with curb lines 15 feet inside, leaving a 70-foot center area for public use.
- TxDOT discovered the encroachment during proposed FM 1847 improvements and demanded abatement in 2007; NICO counterclaimed that the dedication limited the roadway to the curb line.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment to NICO, holding the right-of-way was limited to 70 feet by the curb-line condition; the State appealed.
- The court of appeals affirmed, adopting the curb-line limitation on the public street, and held the fifteen feet beyond the curb line was not dedicated for public use.
- This Court reversed, holding the dedication established a 100-foot street easement and the curb-line condition cannot restrain the State’s authority; remanded for further proceedings on removal of the encroachment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does curb-line language limit the public street to 70 feet? | NICO asserts curb-line condition constrains the roadway to 70 feet. | State contends the dedication creates a 100-foot street, curb-line restriction invalid. | Curb-line condition void; 100-foot street easement must be used. |
| Does the dedication permit the State to widen or improve to the boundary line beyond the curb? | NICO argues restrictions impair public use. | State argues dedication permits widening to full boundary. | State may widen to the boundary; dedication governs. |
| Does a curb-line restriction survive when inconsistent with public dedication? | NICO’s condition preserves grantor control. | Public policy favors full public control over dedicated streets. | Curb-line restriction repugnant to public rights; void. |
| Is the encroaching building a nuisance or purpresture subject to removal? | NICO argues no nuisance as portion left for public use. | Encroachment impedes the public easement and is a nuisance. | Building encroachment removable; State entitled to summary judgment on nuisance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Blankenburg, 235 S.W.2d 891 (Tex. 1951) (public street easements carry broad control for public use)
- Town of Palm Valley v. Johnson, 17 S.W.3d 281 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2000) (dedication controls; repugnant restrictions void)
- Ryan Props., Inc. v. City of Austin, 284 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. App.–Austin 1998) (restrictions inconsistent with public dedication void)
- Harlingen Irrigation Dist. v. Caprock Comm. Corp., 49 S.W.3d 520 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2001) (restrictions requiring dedicator approval of improvements void)
- City of Fort Worth v. Ryan Props., Inc., 284 S.W.2d 211 (Tex. Civ. App.–Fort Worth 1955) (dedication inconsistent with grant governs)