Clearpoint Crossing v. Chambers

569 S.W.3d 195

CLEARPOINT CROSSING PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND CULLEN'S LLC and 11500 Space Center, LLC, Appellants

v.Joseph CHAMBERS and Debbie Chambers, Appellees

NO. 01-16-00773-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st Dist.).

Opinion issued October 25, 2018

Rehearing Denied December 4, 2018

Rehearing En Banc Denied January 31, 2019

Jane Bland, Justice

In this appeal, we determine the scope of two express easements and whether landowners may claim those easements, and an easement by necessity, to benefit their entire tract. After a jury trial, the trial court rendered a judgment in favor of landowners Joseph and Debbie Chambers, ruling that (1) the express easements provide the entire tract with an unqualified right of access to a public road via the adjacent landowners' private road and parking lot; and (2) an implied easement by necessity gives the same unqualified right of access.

The adjacent landowners, who are burdened by these easements, appeal. First, the burdened landowners contend that the trial court erred in ruling that the express easements provide an unqualified right of access to the entire tract, because the express easements benefit only a portion of the tract and replaced an earlier, abandoned easement that granted access only for uses associated with drilling for oil and gas. Second, the burdened landowners contend that the trial court erred in ruling that the Chambers have an easement by necessity across the private road and parking lot because no evidence demonstrates a present necessity for access.

We conclude that the express easements benefit a portion of the Chambers tract, and not the entire tract, because they unambiguously limit the land benefitted by describing it. We further conclude that the express easements granting access do not limit that access to uses associated with drilling for oil and gas on the benefited tract. Thus, we reject the burdened landowners' contention that access is limited to that needed for oil and gas activity. Because the express easements grant a right of ingress and egress to a portion of—and not the entire—tract, we reverse the judgment declaring that the express easements benefit the entire tract.

With respect to the second contention, challenging the trial court's finding of an easement by necessity, we conclude that no evidence supports a finding of present necessity. Express easements exist and benefit a portion of the tract, and the remainder of the tract is contiguous with the portion benefited by the express easements. Thus, we reverse the judgment granting an implied easement by necessity. We remand the case for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion and for further proceedings to address maintenance costs and attorney's fees.

BACKGROUND

The Chambers own 32 acres near, but not touching, Space Center Boulevard (the "Chambers tract"). Adjoining the Chambers tract, and between the Chambers tract and Space Center Boulevard, is land owned by Clearpoint Crossing Property Owners Association and 11500 Space Center, LLC, and leased by Cullen's, LLC (the "Clearpoint tract"). The Chambers tract is landlocked, lacking direct access to a public road.

Exxon Mobil Corporation previously owned the Chambers tract. In November 2007, Exxon abandoned an earlier easement that gave the Chambers tract access across the Clearpoint tract, in exchange for the two express easements at issue in this case. In one easement, Clearpoint conveyed an easement across its land via a private road; in the other, 11500 Space Center conveyed an easement across a parking lot. Together, the two easements gave Exxon access from the Chambers tract to Space Center Boulevard. Both easements are perpetual, irrevocable, and run with the land to benefit Exxon's successors and assigns. The easements state that their purpose was to give "free and uninterrupted pedestrian and vehicular ingress to and egress from" a parcel of the Chambers tract identified as "Drill Site BB," which they describe as a 7-acre tract within the larger 32-acre property. Exxon had owned Drill Site BB before acquiring the entire 32 acres.

The following diagram illustrates the general location of the properties relative to one another (though not to scale):

As the diagram shows, while the express easements state that they exist to provide access to Drill Site BB, that access is indirect, because Drill Site BB is on the opposite end of the Chambers tract from the Clearpoint tract and Drill Site BB's boundaries do not abut the Clearpoint tract.

After buying the Chambers tract, the Chambers began using the easements to clear the land in preparation for growing hay on 20 acres and for building air-conditioned storage units on another 5 acres. This lawsuit arose after Clearpoint opposed this use of the easements.

The parties tried their dispute to a jury. Clearpoint and 11500 Space Center contended that the express easements are limited in scope and grant the Chambers access to benefit Drill Site BB, not the entire tract, and for the sole purpose of furthering drilling activities. Clearpoint and 11500 Space Center also disputed whether the Chambers were entitled to an implied easement by necessity.

The Chambers countered that the express easements grant access to the entirety of their 32-acre property for any purpose. They also maintained that they were entitled to an easement by necessity granting an unqualified right of ingress and egress.

The jury found that the express easements granted a right of ingress and egress to benefit the entire Chambers tract. In addition, the jury made three predicate findings in the Chambers's favor as to whether they had a necessity easement. Specifically, the jury found that:

• the Chambers tract was severed from the Clearpoint tract in May 2004;

• an easement across the Clearpoint tract at that time would have provided access from the Chambers tract to a public road; and

• the Chambers tract had no other access to a public road on that date.

Based on these findings, the jury further found that Clearpoint and 11500 Space Center were entitled to $ 15,000 and $ 25,000, respectively, for reimbursement for maintenance, improvement, and repair of the easements benefiting the Chambers tract. The jury found that both sides had incurred reasonable and necessary attorney's fees: it found that Clearpoint and 11500 Space Center had incurred $ 102,088.29 in fees in the trial court; the jury found that the Chambers incurred $ 55,000 in fees in the trial court and awarded $ 15,000 in the event of an appeal to the court of appeals and $ 20,000 should it be necessary to file a petition for review to the Supreme Court of Texas.

Based on the jury's verdict, the trial court rendered a judgment declaring that (1) the express easements give the Chambers an unqualified right of ingress and egress to and from their entire property, not just Drill Site BB; and (2) the Chambers have a necessity easement as an additional easement across the Clearpoint tract in the same location and for the same purpose as the express easements. It awarded $ 15,000 to Clearpoint and $ 25,000 to 11500 Space Center in maintenance costs. It awarded the Chambers their attorney's fees.

DISCUSSION

I. The Express Easements

Clearpoint and 11500 Space Center contend that the trial court erred in ruling that the express easements give the Chambers a right of ingress and egress to and from the entirety of their 32-acre property. Clearpoint and 11500 Space Center further contend that these express easements convey only the rights conferred by the earlier, abandoned easement. The earlier easement provided for access to the 7 acres comprising Drill Site BB and only for drilling-related activity.

A. Applicable law

When an express easement is unambiguous, the trial court must interpret it as a matter of law, and we review a trial court's interpretation of an unambiguous easement de novo. See DeWitt Cty. Elec. Co-op v. Parks , 1 S.W.3d 96, 100 (Tex. 1999) ; CenterPoint Energy Houston Elec. v. Bluebonnet Dr. , 264 S.W.3d 381, 388 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied). An express easement is unambiguous when its language has a certain or definite meaning. DeWitt Cty. , 1 S.W.3d at 100. The mere fact that the parties disagree about the meaning of an express easement does not render the easement ambiguous. Id.

An easement does not convey title to property. Stephen F. Austin Univ. v. Flynn , 228 S.W.3d 653, 658 (Tex. 2007) ; Brookshire Katy Drainage Dist. v. Lily Gardens , 333 S.W.3d 301, 309 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. denied). Rather, it is a nonpossessory interest that allows its holder to use another's property for a stated purpose, in this instance, access to a public road. See Marcus Cable Assocs. v. Krohn , 90 S.W.3d 697, 700 (Tex. 2002) ; Koelsch v. Indus. Gas Supply Corp. , 132 S.W.3d 494, 497 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied). An easement that grants a right of ingress and egress, like the ones at issue, allows the holder to traverse another's land to access his own property. Coleman v. Forister , 514 S.W.2d 899, 903 (Tex. 1974).

We interpret an express easement using ordinary principles of contract interpretation. Marcus Cable , 90 S.W.3d at 700 ; CenterPoint , 264 S.W.3d at 388. We rely solely on the written terms of an easement to ascertain its scope, focusing on the terms of its granting language. See Marcus Cable , 90 S.W.3d at 700–01 ; CenterPoint , 264 S.W.3d at 388. Unless defined, we give these terms their plain, ordinary, generally accepted meaning. Marcus Cable , 90 S.W.3d at 701 ; CenterPoint , 264 S.W.3d at 388. So interpreted, an easement's express terms delineate the purposes for which it may be used. Marcus Cable , 90 S.W.3d at 701.

An easement does not grant any rights by implication unless those rights are reasonably necessary to enjoy the rights that the easement expressly grants. Marcus Cable , 90 S.W.3d at 701 ; CenterPoint , 264 S.W.3d at 389. If the easement does not provide for a...