R2 Rests., Inc. v. Mineola Cmty. Bank
Decision Date | 25 July 2018 |
Docket Number | NO. 12-17-00328-CV,12-17-00328-CV |
Citation | 561 S.W.3d 642 |
Parties | R2 RESTAURANTS, INC., Appellant v. MINEOLA COMMUNITY BANK, SSB, Appellee |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
M. Keith Dollahite, for Appellant.
Julie P. Wright, for Appellee.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
R2 Restaurants, Inc. appeals the trial court’s declaratory judgment and award of attorney’s fees rendered in favor of Appellee Mineola Community Bank, SSB. R2 raises four issues on appeal. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
The instant case arises out of easements on property adjacent to a Wal-Mart parking lot in Wood County, Texas. The property, which consists of two vacant lots, was conveyed by Wal-Mart to Perimeter Properties, L.P. in 1994. At or about that time, Wal-Mart conveyed to Perimeter an easement, which set forth, in pertinent part, as follows:
The site plan comprising Exhibit "A" to the Wal-Mart easement depicts the tracts and easements, in pertinent part, as follows:
In 1995, Perimeter conveyed the north lot to UP Enterprises, a Taco Bell franchisee. Around that time, Perimeter and UP entered into a reciprocal easement agreement (REA).1 The REA stated, in pertinent part, as follows:
The site plan comprising Exhibit "A" to the REA depicts the tracts and easements, in pertinent part, as follows:
Further, Exhibit "D" to the REA depicts the tracts and easements, in pertinent part, as follows:
UP installed a "mutual access" lane between the two lots. But neither Perimeter nor its successors installed a "mutual access" driveway to Highway 564.
That same year, UP constructed a Taco Bell franchise on the north lot. R2 has owned and operated this Taco Bell franchise continuously since 1995. For seven and one-half years, the south lot remained vacant. But on June 25, 2002, Perimeter and UP executed an Amendment to the REA, in part to correct representations of ownership set forth in the REA. The amendment further states that " ‘Access Easement’ shall mean the driveways, walkways and sidewalks, curb cuts, exits and entrances and other common areas as may from time to time exist on [the south lot]."
Fifteen Thirteen, LLC later acquired the south lot and constructed a car wash on it in July 2002. During that time, Fifteen Thirteen constructed a driveway from the south lot to Highway 37. On September 24, 2010, Fifteen Thirteen sold the south lot to MCB. MCB demolished the car wash building in 2011, but left in place the pad and concrete driveway connecting the two lots at the mutual access easement on the eastern side of the lots. During the years that followed, MCB’s activities on the lot were limited to having someone mow the grass, placing an advertising sign on the lot for the bank, and permitting community groups to put signs at the corner of the lot. The following aerial photograph of the property as it currently exists is part of the record in this case:
In 2016, R2 commenced reconstruction of the Taco Bell located on the north lot. The new restaurant was to be built in accordance to a corporate prototype plan, one aspect of which required the dumpster to be placed as far away from customers as possible. Prior to the commencement of construction, Chet Davis, R2’s vice president, contacted James Herlocker, MCB’s president, and asked if R2’s contractor could place a small portable building and a temporary dumpster on the south lot during construction. Herlocker gave permission for the contractor to do so.
During construction, a new dumpster enclosure was constructed in the southeast corner of the north lot where the easement between the two lots was located. Furthermore, the curb cut at the location of the easement between lots on their western sides was closed. Thereafter, Herlocker complained to Davis about the location of the dumpster enclosure. In response, Davis suggested that MCB get its own easement from Wal-Mart to access the Wal-Mart parking lot. MCB also contacted...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eagle Railcar Servs. v. Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc.
... ... also R2 Restaurants, Inc. v. Mineola Comty. Bank, SSB , ... 561 S.W.3d 642, 660 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2018, ... ...
-
Boucher v. Thacker
...weight of all the evidence, that the answer should be set aside and a new trial ordered. R2 Restaurants, Inc. v. Mineola Cmty. Bank, SSB , 561 S.W.3d 642, 653 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2018, pet. denied) (citing Pool v. Ford Motor Co. , 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam) (op. on reh'g); Ca......
-
Martin v. Hutchison, 06-19-00093-CV
...are not entitled to deference when we conduct a de novo review of pure questions of law. R2 Restaurants, Inc. v. Mineola Cmty. Bank, SSB, 561 S.W.3d 642, 658 n.8 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2018, pet. denied). 8. Under the amendments, the TCPA does not apply to claims that are merely "related to" an e......
-
In re L.W.G.
... ... The award of ... attorney's fees generally rests within the family ... court's discretion. See El ... ...