Cowan v. Worrell

• Decision Date: 06 January 2022
• Docket Number: No. 11-20-00041-CV,11-20-00041-CV
• Citation: 638 S.W.3d 244
• Parties: James COWAN and Nancy Cowan, Appellants v. Rex WORRELL and Paige Worrell-Burrus, Appellees
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

638 S.W.3d 244

James COWAN and Nancy Cowan, Appellants

v.Rex WORRELL and Paige Worrell-Burrus, Appellees

No. 11-20-00041-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eastland.

Opinion filed January 6, 2022

Robert J. Glasgow, Glasgow, Taylor, Isham & Glasgow, P.C., Stephenville, for Appellants.

James J. Elliott, Ryan Taylor, Stephenville, for Appellees.

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

OPINION

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS, JUSTICE

This appeal arises out of a dispute over whether a road that sits on 1.98 acres of land in Erath County is a public road or Appellants’ private drive.After a bench trial, the trial court entered a final judgment in Appellees’ favor, declaring the road to be public and describing the location of the road by metes and bounds.The trial court also declared that Appellants own no portion of the public road and that the southern boundary of Appellants’ property lies immediately to the north of the public road.The trial court enjoined Appellants from obstructing access to the road by the general public or abutting landowners and ordered that Appellants take nothing on their counterclaim for adverse possession.The trial court also entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its final judgment.We affirm that judgment.

Appellants raise six issues on appeal.First, Appellants claim that there is legally no evidence or factually insufficient evidence to support the trial court's declaration that the disputed road is a public road.Second, Appellants claim that there is legally no evidence or factually insufficient evidence to support the trial court's declaration of the metes and bounds description of the road.Third, Appellants claim that there is legally no evidence or factually insufficient evidence to support the trial court's declaration that Appellants own no portion of the road and that the southern boundary of their property terminates immediately north of the road.Fourth, Appellants claim that there is no evidence to support the trial court's ruling that the affidavit of heirship offered by Appellants was wholly ineffective to evidence ownership of the 1.98 acres within which the disputed road is situated.Fifth, Appellants claim that there is legally no evidence or factually insufficient evidence to support the trial court's order that twelve deeds from the purported heirs of E.L. Caraway to Appellants are wholly ineffective to change or alter the legal status or ownership of the disputed road.Finally, Appellants claim that the trial court erred in declaring that they take nothing on their counterclaim for declaratory judgment because they established, as a matter of law, all vital facts in support of their counterclaim and that the trial court's adverse ruling is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.

Background Facts

Appellants James and Nancy Cowan came to possess their 106.31-acre tract of property in the Uriah Anderson survey of Erath County through the chain of conveyances set forth below.The conveyance documents in Appellants’ chain of title frequently identify the northern edge of the road as the southern boundary of the property that was eventually conveyed to Appellants.

A. 1941–1945

On October 13, 1941, L.E. Capell conveyed 70 acres of land within a 160-acre subdivision of the Uriah Anderson survey to M.A. Bramlett, by warranty deed.The deed calls described the property as beginning at the southeast corner of the 160-acre subdivision, on the south line of the Anderson survey, thence northwestward to the east line of the Dublin and Hazeldell road, and so on back to the place of beginning.Four years later, on November 8, 1945, M.A. Bramlett conveyed the 70-acre tract and an additional 30-acre tract to E.L. Caraway by warranty deed.The deed purported to convey "that certain 100 acres of land more or less, out of the Uriah Anderson survey."The deed calls described the property, in two separate tracts, with "70 acres of land more or less, out of the.T.C. Capell 160-acre subdivision of said survey and beginning at the S[outh E]ast C[orner] of said 160 acres in the S[outhern] B[oundary] Line of said Anderson survey," and thence northwestward "to the E[astern] B[oundary] Line of Dublin and Hazeldell road," and so on back to the point of beginning.The deed describes the "30 acres of land more or less," also as beginning at "the S[outhern] B[oundary] Line of said Anderson survey.

B. 1953–1954

About eight years later, in April 1953, Caraway conveyed a right of way to the State of Texas, which the deed described as being "on the East side of HighwayNo. F.M. 1702 as relocated and adopted by the Texas Highway Department," and beginning "on the centerline of the existing road and the said Highway and a county road ... [t]hence [running southeasterly] along the centerline of a county road ... with the South line of the Uriah Anderson Survey ... and the North line of the Sion Blythe Survey."About a year after that, on March 3, 1954, Caraway conveyed to the Veterans Land Board(VLB), by warranty deed, "106.31 acres of land, out of the Uriah Anderson Survey ... being the same land described as 100 acres more or less in the deed from M.A. Bramlett and wife to E.L. Caraway dated Nov. 8, 1945."The deed purports to describe the property by metes and bounds as beginning "on the East side of F.M. HighwayNo. 1702, and on the North side of a public road which runs along the south line of said Anderson Survey, for the S[outh] W[est] Corner of [the property]," and so on until reaching "the South line of said Survey and North line of a public road to the place of beginning, and calculated to contain 106.31 acres of land."

C. 1954

That same year, on February 19, 1954, the VLB entered into a contract for sale of the aforementioned property to Gayland Hall.On October 11, 1990, after receiving the remainder of what was owed under the contract for sale, the VLB conveyed the property to Hall.In the deed, the VLB purported to convey "that 106.31-acre tract situated in the Uriah Anderson Survey ... described by metes and bounds in the Warranty Deed to the Veterans Land Board dated March 3, 1954 ... and also further described in that Contract of Sale to [Hall] dated February 19, 1954."The contract for sale of the 106.31 acres from VLB to Hall contained the same metes and bounds description as the deed from Caraway to VLB.

D. 2012 - The Cowan Deed

On December 18, 2012, following Hall's death, his widow Imogene Hall conveyed to AppellantNancy Cowan, by warranty deed, "that 106.31-acre tract situated in the Uriah Anderson Survey ... described by metes and bounds in the Warranty Deed to the Veterans Land Board dated March 3, 1954 ... and further described in that Contract of sale, dated February 19, 1954," subject to a life estate in Imogene Hall.Appellants did not move onto the property until sometime in 2015.

E.Appellees’ Chain of Title

AppelleesRex Worrell and Paige Worrell-Burrus came to possess their respective tracts of property within the Sion Blythe survey of Erath County through the following chain of events.The White family owned large amounts of land abutting the disputed road since the 1850s, including Appellees’ current property, during all of which time the family used the road for ingress and egress from their property.On September 21, 2006, Robert Ligon White conveyed to AppelleeRex Worrell, by warranty deed, 140.41 acres of land in the Sion Blythe survey.The deed describes the boundary of the property toward the northwest corner as running "partly along a fence and an abandoned county road."The deed conveyed the property subject to reservations in favor of preexisting rights of way and easements, including an easement for ingress and egress conveyed by Tom White to Faye Spencer on April 21, 1954.The deed from White to Spencer describes the right of way easement as beginning "in the center of the old road; [t]hence with the center of old road ... to an old county road; [t]hence with old county road ... to Farm RoadNo. 1702."On November 16, 2010, Rex Worrell conveyed some land from the northwest corner of his 140.41-acre tract to his daughter, Paige Worrell-Burrus, describing her tract as beginning "at a capped 3/8 iron rod found at the northwest corner of the said 140.41-acre tract.... and in the center of an old county road, for the northwest corner of this tract."

F.Public and Private Usage

Long before any of the parties to this suit owned land abutting the disputed road, the White family had been using the disputed road as a means of ingress to and egress from their property.When Rex Worrell first purchased his 140.41-acre tract from Robert White, he used the disputed road as his means of ingress to and egress from his property.He still uses the road on occasion to transport hay to Paige's house when the road between their respective houses is inaccessible.Paige Worrell-Burrus has used and continues to use the road as her sole reliable means of ingress to and egress from her property.While Rex Worrell has an alternative means of ingress and egress, his property is separated from Paige Worrell-Burrus's by a creek, and the bridge to cross the creek is so low that on most days that road is inaccessible for her, leaving her with no reliable means of ingress and egress other than the disputed road.

G.Commissioners Court Resolutions Regarding the Road

On October 22, 2012, about two months before Imogene Hall conveyed an interest in her property to AppellantNancy Cowan, the Commissioners Court of Erath County approved and adopted a resolution declaring that the "public road" referred to in the aforementioned instruments "has not been maintained as a county road but has been continued to be used as a public road."The Commissioners Court"formally adopt[ed] said road ... as Public Road 335."Appellants claim they did not receive notice regarding the proposed resolution, despite attending the first meeting at which the subsequent meeting was...