A rancher in Gillespie County, TX, prevailed in an easement by estoppel dispute after the Texas 7th District Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s opinion.
Rancher Tom Bloxom appealed the trial court’s decision in favor of Mutt Land Holdings LP regarding the alleged existence of an easement by estoppel over an “access road” on Bloxom’s ranch land.
According to court documents, land parcels owned separately by Bloxom and Mutt Land Holdings were once unified and owned by the Leutbecher family, who later decided to divide and sell a portion of the land to Alonzo Faught in 1937. The Leutbechers allegedly conveyed that the owner had a “non-possessory right to use the access road to access and improve” it.
Faught’s grandson, Robert Faught, acknowledged learning about the verbal contract, but later said the Leutbechers told Alonzo Faught “they could use that access anytime they wanted to.” The Faughts used the road until Mutt Land Holdings acquired the property. Bloxom, who purchased the remaining parcel portion, objected to Mutt’s use of the road and denied the existence of an easement over the road, despite Faught’s claims.
In 2023, the 216th District Court in Gillespie County, TX, compelled Bloxom to grant Mutt Land Holdings permanent access across their ranch through an easement by estoppel. Although Mutt Land Holdings had alternative access, they sought access through the Bloxoms’ property for their convenience. The district court awarded Mutt Land Holdings the easement by estoppel across the Bloxoms’ property without a full trial. Bloxom appealed the ruling to the court of appeals.
The Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TSCRA) filed a brief in support of the Bloxoms in the court of appeals. TSCRA said the establishment of the easement contradicts established authorities on implied easements in Texas, posing a significant threat to Texas landowners and warranting reversal of the trial court’s decision.
TSCRA wrote easement conflicts in Texas are escalating due to the subdivision of properties and the arrival of new owners from distant locations seeking additional access rights. The potential for increased litigation among neighboring landowners is evident, with some attempting to establish permanent easements based on speculative histories and hearsay.
TSCRA continued that given the significant implications of judicially imposed easements, courts should uphold rigorous standards. The organization said this case offers an opportunity for the court to reaffirm fundamental principles of easements in Texas and safeguard the property rights of landowners by rejecting the asserted easement by estoppel.
The court ruled communication regarding the easement was oral and likely occurred during the division and conveyance of the Leutbecher land to Alonzo Faught. The ruling said it’s plausible that the reference to “they” in the communication was intended solely for Alonzo and his family and that no evidence suggests the use by a third party. The court said that in Robert Faught’s affidavit, the statement referencing “they” could use the road “anytime they wanted to” could be interpreted as an informal agreement between neighbors for convenience.
The ruling continued the distinction between telling Alonzo Faught he had “a non-possessory right to use” and telling him he could use the road “anytime” raises questions about the clarity of the communication. The uncertainty surrounding what was actually said over eight decades ago and the Leutbechers’ intentions at the time are key material issues, as “matters of intent are inherently questions of fact dependent upon the circumstances surrounding the utterance.”
“Simply put, uncertainty abounds which prevents a jurist from concluding, as a matter of law, that Alonzo or his successors gained a conveyable right from words permitting a neighbor to use the access road ‘anytime,” the opinion read.
TSCRA President Carl Ray Polk Jr. issued a statement commending the court for upholding fundamental private property rights in the case.
“District courts are increasingly bypassing the trial process and granting easements across adjacent ranches by summary judgment,” Polk said. “This ruling affirms the longstanding protection of private property rights in Texas law.”
The court of appeals remanded the case back to the trial court. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
