United Services Professional Group, Inc. D/B/A Pyramid Realty, Majid Hammasi, Sadat Bassampour Fatemeh, and Al Daneshian v. David M. Hurt, Kimberly R. Hurt, National Audubon Society, Inc., and Dallas County Audubon Society, Inc.
05-14-00108-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 7, 2015Background
- Appellants own landlocked lots with a 50-foot road easement (25 feet each side of centerline) across appellees’ (Audubon and Hurts) property, created when a 287-acre tract was subdivided.
- Appellants sought to clear vegetation and create a driveable path; in April 2010 a backhoe operator cleared vegetation beyond the easement onto the Hurts’ land.
- Hurts and Audubon sued: Hurts for trespass and damages; Audubon for declaratory relief limiting the easement to ingress/egress and prohibiting development uses, utility installation, transporting machinery/materials, and damaging servient land.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment and later entered judgment finding trespass and awarding Hurts $88,493; it also declared the easement limited to ingress/egress and barred excavation, utility installation, and any use that would violate city/state/federal laws.
- On appeal, appellants challenged (1) declaratory relief beyond pleadings, (2) judgment inconsistent with easement text, (3) vagueness of judgment, and (4) sufficiency of evidence for damages.
- The Court of Appeals modified the judgment by deleting two declaratory provisions (prohibiting violation of ordinances and forbidding excavation/clearing), and affirmed the remainder, including the damages award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether trial court granted declaratory relief beyond pleadings | Audubon/Hurts argued pleadings sought limitations on development and protection from damage (including citing city ordinances) | Appellants argued court exceeded pleadings by declaring prohibition against violating ordinances and laws | Court: Declaration precluding violations of city/state/federal laws was not pleaded or tried by consent → that portion is void and deleted |
| 2. Whether judgment barring excavation/clearing is consistent with easement language | Audubon argued the easement should be limited to ingress/egress and preclude clearing that would harm the preserve | Appellants argued a "road easement for ingress and egress" necessarily allows excavation/clearing to make a vehicle passage | Court: Plain meaning of "road" allows vehicle passage; forbidding excavation/clearing conflicts with easement → deleted from judgment |
| 3. Whether judgment is indefinite about transporting machinery/materials | Audubon sought declaratory relief forbidding transporting machinery/materials; judgment stated easement limited to ingress/egress | Appellants contended the ingress/egress wording was vague and might still prohibit transporting machinery | Court: Judgment limiting easement to ingress/egress is sufficiently definite; trial court denied the specific requested ban on transporting machinery/materials → issue overruled |
| 4. Sufficiency of evidence supporting $88,493 damages for trespass | Hurts presented expert estimating restoration costs of $88,493 for the trespassed area | Appellants argued expert failed to segregate damage on easement from damage off easement; some damage may have been within appellants’ easement rights | Court: Evidence (including expert testimony focused on trespassed area) supports the award; legal and factual sufficiency challenges overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Marcus Cable Assocs., L.P. v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. 2002) (easements grant limited, specific use; plain meaning controls)
- Severance v. Patterson, 370 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2012) (easement use must be reasonably necessary and not unduly burdensome to servient estate)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for legal sufficiency review)
- Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., L.C., 348 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. 2011) (appellant must show absence of evidence on challenged finding)
- Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986) (standard for factual sufficiency review)
- N. Tex. Mun. Water Dist. v. Ball, 466 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015) (contract interpretation principles apply to easements)
- DeWitt Cnty. Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Parks, 1 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. 1999) (rules of contract construction govern express easements)