Doll v. Cain Hurst
| Decision Date | 14 August 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-02-00576-CV.,03-02-00576-CV. |
| Parties | Ronald L. Doll and Paradise Cove Marina and Yacht Club, L.L.C./Margaret R. Cain Hurst; Arthur Rhodes; Darrell Hamric, Jr.; The Colonnetta Family Limited Partnership; Preston M. Smith; Carolyn M. Smith; and Henry D. Smith, Appellants, v. Margaret R. Cain Hurst; Arthur Rhodes; Darrell Hamric, Jr.; The Colonnetta Family Limited Partnership; Preston M. Smith; Carolyn M. Smith; and Henry D. Smith/Ronald L. Doll and Paradise Cove Marina and Yacht Club, L.L.C., Appellees. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 93-12407, HONORABLE DARLENE BYRNE, JUDGE PRESIDING
Before Chief Justice Law, Justices B. A. Smith and Puryear
When the owner of a marina on Lake Travis attempted to keep surrounding lakefront property owners from using his beach property for recreational purposes, a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed. The marina owner also provoked a title dispute with another lakefront homeowner. The two suits were consolidated and the issues were tried to a jury. The jury found (1) that the lakefront homeowners had an easement across the beach property for recreational purposes, (2) that the other homeowner had established title to the disputed tract by adverse possession, and (3) that the marina owner did not trespass in clearing a path across that homeowner's property. All parties appeal. The marina owner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, certain jury instructions, and other matters. The homeowners challenge the jury's failure to find that the marina owner trespassed, and other matters. We hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict, overrule all other issues asserted on appeal, and affirm the trial court's judgment in all respects.
Margaret R. Cain Hurst and Arthur Rhodes, Darrell Hamric, Jr., The Colonnetta Family Limited Partnership, Preston and Carolyn Smith, and Henry D. Smith (collectively, "the homeowners") own individual lakefront lots along the shores of Lake Travis. Ronald L. Doll and Paradise Cove Marina and Yacht Club, L.L.C. (collectively, "Doll") own a large tract of land to the north and west of the homeowners' lots. In the northern part of his property, Doll operates a marina. The western portion of Doll's tract is the beach property that lies between Lake Travis and the lots owned by the homeowners. Because of the variable levels of Lake Travis, the beach property is sometimes entirely underwater. When the lake level is up, the homeowners do not need to cross the beach property to get to the water; however, when the lake is down and the beach property exposed, the homeowners must cross it to access the lake.
In the mid 1940s, August Brill (Brill Sr.) and his son Arno Brill (Brill Jr.) owned adjacent tracts of land on the shores of Lake Travis. In 1944, Brill Sr. filed a plat map designating a portion of his land "the Arno Brill Third Subdivision." Apparently this was part of a joint undertaking with his son, who that same year platted "the Arno Brill Second Subdivision" out of his adjacent land. Both plat maps indicate that the subdivided lots are "lake tracts"1 and show the subdivided lots bordering Lake Travis. In April 1945, Brill Sr. conveyed lots 21 and 22 out of the third subdivision to the predecessors in title to Cain Hurst and Rhodes, Hamric, and Colonnetta.2 The following month Brill Sr. conveyed the beach property and the unplatted parcels of the land surrounding the third subdivision3 to Brill Jr.
Although there are no express easements in their chains of title, the homeowners and their predecessors in title had historically used the beach property for recreational purposes such as swimming, sunbathing, fishing, and boat docking. In 1981, Doll purchased the marina and initiated efforts to exclude the homeowners and their neighbors from using the beach area. After numerous lawsuits arose, in 1993 Doll sued Cain Hurst, Hamric, and Colonnetta4—all of whom owned lakefront homes in the third subdivision—seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to bar the homeowners from using the beach property.
A short time later, Doll decided to set up a "park" and charge admission to the beach property. He erected an eight-foot tall chainlink fence running in front of the third-subdivision homeowners' lots— between them and the beach area.5 The homeowners were granted a temporary injunction ordering Doll to remove the fence, but the court allowed the fence poles to remain in place pending the trial on the merits of this case.
In 1975, Preston Smith and his father Henry Smith purchased a 1.42-acre tract in a small unplatted area lying between two sections of the third subdivision. The Smiths built a cabin on this tract and used the beach area for recreational purposes just as the third-subdivision homeowners did. In the late 1980s, Preston Smith and his wife Carolyn decided to purchase an adjoining parcel of land, which had been advertised as a one-acre tract. When the tract was surveyed prior to closing it was discovered that the metes and bounds description in the original 1947 deed from Brill Jr. did not include the bottom .45 acres of this property. As a result, at closing the tract was conveyed as two separate parcels, one .45-acre tract and one .678-acre tract. There is no indication that the property had ever before been treated as separate tracts. There is rockwork, terracing, and a path extending from the upper .678-acre portion down onto the lower .45-acre portion. The Smiths' predecessors in title had paid property taxes on one full tract comprised of all the land since the 1960s.
In 1993, Doll contacted the Smiths and claimed that he owned the lower .45-acre tract. A short time later, Doll bulldozed a path from an area road through the Smiths' property to the lakeshore in order to clear an easement.6 The path ran more or less along the northwestern edge of the upper .678-acre tract and bordered the 1.42-acre tract that Preston and Henry Smith had purchased in 1975. The Smiths then filed suit, seeking damages for trespass and a declaratory judgment that they had acquired title to the .45-acre tract by adverse possession, and that they possessed a recreational easement entitling them to use of the beach property.
In 1996, the Smiths' suit was consolidated with Doll's suit against the third-subdivision homeowners, and the parties were realigned. The case was tried to a jury, which found that all the homeowners had acquired (1) an implied easement, (2) a negative easement or servitude arising from a general plan or scheme of development, (3) an easement by estoppel, and (4) an easement by prescription, entitling them to use the beach property for recreational purposes. The jury also found that the Smiths had established title to the disputed .45-acre tract by adverse possession and that Doll did not trespass upon the Smiths' property by clearing the path.
On appeal, Doll claims that there is no evidence or factually insufficient evidence to support the jury's findings that the homeowners have acquired a recreational easement across the beach property, and that the Smiths have acquired title to the .45-acre tract by adverse possession. The homeowners also appeal, claiming that there is legally and factually insufficient evidence to support the jury's failure to find that Doll trespassed when clearing the path across the Smiths' property.
To review the evidence under a no-evidence challenge, we consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, indulging every reasonable inference in that party's favor. Associated Indem. Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 276, 285-86 (Tex. 1998). We will uphold the finding if more than a scintilla of evidence supports it. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye, 907 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Tex. 1995). Evidence amounts to more than a scintilla if reasonable minds could arrive at the finding given the facts proved in the particular case. See Crye, 907 S.W.2d at 499; Transportation Ins. Co. v. Moriel, 879 S.W.2d 10, 25 (Tex. 1994). When reviewing a challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence, we must consider, weigh, and examine all of the evidence in the record. Plas-Tex, Inc. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 772 S.W.2d 442, 445 (Tex. 1989). The jury finding should be set aside only if the evidence is so weak, or the finding so contrary to the great weight of the evidence, as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. See Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
The jury found that the homeowners had established their entitlement to use the beach area for recreational purposes under theories of implication from a general scheme of development, implied easement, easement by estoppel, and easement by prescription. Each of these theories was submitted in a separate question. In his third point of error, Doll claims that the evidence is both legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's finding that the homeowners' property and the beach property were part of a general plan or scheme of development entitling the homeowners to use the beach property.
In Texas, land-use restrictions in the form of equitable servitudes may be created by implication from a general plan of development covering a tract divided into a number of lots. See Selected Lands Corp. v. Speich, 702 S.W.2d 197, 198-200 (); Lehmann v. Wallace, 510 S.W.2d 675, 680 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1974, writ ref'd n.r.e.); cf. Evans v. Pollock, 796 S.W.2d 465, 466 (Tex. 1990). A purchaser who takes with constructive notice of those restrictions is bound by them. See Selected Lands, 702 S.W.2d at 199; Lehmann, 510 S.W.2d at 680-81. In many cases such...
To continue reading
Request your trial