West Harbour, LLC v. Orleans Harbour Homeowners Association, Inc., 14-23-00249-CV

West Harbour, LLC ("West Harbour") and Orleans Harbour Homeowners Association, Inc. ("the Association") own neighboring lots (Lot 35 and Lot 34, respectively) along the Colorado River in Travis County, Texas.
In the 1980s, the Association, with permission from prior owners of Lot 35, constructed a new bulkhead that reclaimed part of a peninsula, some of which extended into Lot 35.
The Association has used portions of Lot 35’s peninsula for recreation and built fences that encroach on Lot 35 (the "Driveway Tract").
In 2018, West Harbour purchased Lot 35, sought to develop it, and took issue with the Association’s claims to land and its use of the peninsula and driveway area.
The Association filed suit seeking declaratory judgment, quiet title, and adverse possession claims over the disputed areas; West Harbour counterclaimed, seeking to clarify boundary lines and exclude the Association’s claims.
The trial court found for the Association (easement by estoppel over the peninsula; adverse possession over the Driveway Tract), but West Harbour appealed, contesting the evidence, survey descriptions, and subject-matter jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Easement by Estoppel	Association had easement by estoppel for recreational use based on prior owner’s permissions.	West Harbour argued no vendor/vendee relationship and lack of affirmative representation for an easement.	Reversed and rendered: No legally sufficient evidence or required vendor/vendee relationship; no easement by estoppel.
Adverse Possession	Association acquired the Driveway Tract via 10+ years of exclusive, visible, hostile possession (fence and use).	West Harbour argued evidence was insufficient and survey used didn't match parties' agreed boundary.	Reversed and remanded: Factually insufficient evidence to support adverse possession as described in judgment; new trial required.
Declaratory Judgment - Boundary Line	Not contested; willing to stipulate to boundary, thus no live controversy.	West Harbour argued Association did not properly stipulate and continued to dispute at trial; declaration needed clarity.	Reversed: No enforceable stipulation; controversy existed; remanded for further proceedings.

Crosstex N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Gardiner, 505 S.W.3d 580 (Tex. 2016) (sets standard for legal and factual sufficiency of evidence)
Storms v. Tuck, 579 S.W.2d 447 (Tex. 1979) (defines easement by estoppel doctrine)
Drye v. Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc., 364 S.W.2d 196 (Tex. 1962) (concerning requirements for easement by estoppel)
Ellis v. Jansing, 620 S.W.2d 569 (Tex. 1981) (on adverse possession intent)
Calfee v. Duke, 544 S.W.2d 640 (Tex. 1976) (hostile use for adverse possession does not require intent to dispossess rightful owner)
Zobel v. Slim, 576 S.W.2d 362 (Tex. 1978) (adverse possession judgment must describe land with reasonable certainty)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (standards for factual sufficiency reversal)
Golden Eagle Archery, Inc. v. Jackson, 116 S.W.3d 757 (Tex. 2003) (factual sufficiency in jury verdicts)
Kazmir v. Benavides, 288 S.W.3d 557 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (elements and review of adverse possession)