Koonce v. Brite Estate
Decision Date | 25 January 1984 |
Docket Number | No. C-2396,C-2396 |
Citation | 663 S.W.2d 451 |
Parties | Phil B. KOONCE et ux., Petitioners, v. J.E. BRITE ESTATE, Respondents. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Thorne, Peeler and Rayes, Donna S. Rayes, Pleasanton, for petitioners.
Franklin & Franklin, R. Thomas Franklin, Jourdanton, for respondents.
The Estate of J.E. Brite, acting by and through its Successor Administrator, filed suit to obtain a declaratory judgment establishing an implied easement by necessity across land owned by Genevieve Koonce, wife of Phil Koonce. The trial court rendered judgment awarding the Brite Estate an easement across Mrs. Koonce's property, and the court of appeals affirmed. 655 S.W.2d 329. We reverse those judgments and render judgment that the J.E. Brite Estate take nothing.
The Estate of J.E. Brite is the owner of a ten acre tract landlocked from public access. This acreage is part of a larger tract originally purchased by J.E. Brite and his wife Mabel in 1931. After Mabel's death J.E. Brite became the sole owner of the ten acres pursuant to her will. On the death of J.E. Brite, the tract became part of the J.E. Brite Estate and the dominant estate benefiting from the trial court's judgment establishing an implied easement by necessity.
The servient estate which would be burdened by the trial court's order is a 142 acre tract owned by Genevieve Koonce. The 142 acres is part of an original 284 acres owned by Genevieve Koonce and Mabel Brite, wife of J.E. Brite, as tenants in common. Mabel's undivided one-half interest in the 284 acres also passed to her husband, J.E. Brite, under the terms of her will. Thereafter, J.E. Brite, by deed executed a partition of the 284 acres between himself and Genevieve. It is the 142 acres set aside for Genevieve on partition which constitutes the servient estate.
Texas case law establishes that when a grantor conveys part of a tract of land while retaining the remaining acreage for himself there is an implied reservation of a right of way by necessity over the land conveyed, when no other access exists. Bains v. Parker, 143 Tex. 57, 182 S.W.2d 397 (1944). The elements needed to establish an implied easement by necessity are: (1) unity of ownership prior to separation; (2) access must be a necessity and not a mere convenience; and (3) the necessity must exist at the time of severance of the two estates. Duff v. Matthews, 158 Tex. 333, 311 S.W.2d 637 (1958). The only element controverted before this Court is the presence...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harrington v. Dawson–Conway Ranch, Ltd.
...be a necessity and not a mere convenience, and (3) the necessity existed at the time the estates were severed. Koonce v. J.E. Brite Estate, 663 S.W.2d 451, 452 (Tex.1984); Crone v. Brumley, 219 S.W.3d 65, 68 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006, pet. denied); Tiller, 96 S.W.3d at 622;Machala, 56 S.W.......
-
Harrington v. Dawson-Conway Ranch, Ltd
...be a necessity and not a mere convenience, and (3) the necessity existed at the time the estates were severed. Koonce v. J.E. Brite Estate, 663 S.W.2d 451, 452 (Tex. 1984); Crone v. Brumley, 219 S.W.3d 65, 68 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. denied); Tiller, 96 S.W.3d at 622; Machala, 56 S......
-
Harrington v. Dawson-Conway Ranch, Ltd.
...be a necessity and not a mere convenience, and (3) the necessity existed at the time the estates were severed. Koonce v. J.E. Brite Estate, 663 S.W.2d 451, 452 (Tex. 1984); Crone v. Brumley, 219 S.W.3d 65, 68 (Tex.App.—San Antonio 2006, pet. denied); Tiller, 96 S.W.3d at 622; Machala, 56 S.......
-
Daniel v. Fox
...reservation of a right of way by necessity over the land conveyed exists if there is no other access to the land. Koonce v. Brite Estate, 663 S.W.2d 451, 452 (Tex.1984). To establish an easement by necessity, a party must establish (1) unity of ownership of the dominant and servient estates......
-
CHAPTER 1 THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING MULTIPLE SURFACE USE ISSUES
...notes 200-218 infra. [21] .Id. at 910 citing Bains v. Parker, 143 Tex. 57, 182 S.W.2d 397, 399 (1944) and Koonce v. Brite Estate, 663 S.W.2d 451, 452 (Tex. 1984). [22] .Id. at 910. [23] .Martin & Kramer, note 1 supra at § 218.2. [24] .Id. at 202. There was a time that Oklahoma took a contra......
-
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING MULTIPLE SURFACE USE ISSUES
...notes 200-218 infra. [21] Id. at 910 citing Bains v. Parker, 143 Tex. 57, 182 S.W.2d 397, 399 (1944) and Koonce v. Brite Estate, 663 S.W.2d 451, 452 (Tex. 1984). [22] Id. at 910. [23] Martin & Kramer, note 1 supra at § 218.2. [24] Id. at 202. There was a time that Oklahoma took a contrary p......