### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00096- CV

F red O. P lacke, Jr.; John L . P lacke; William M. P lacke; P lacke & Co., Inc.;

Dorot hy Plac ke and S ue P lacke, Appellants

v. Lee-F ayett e Counties W.C.I.D. #1 a/k/a Lee-F ayett e Counties Cum m ins Creek

WaterControl and Improve m ent Distr ict #1, Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF LEE COUNTY , 335TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 11-3 41, H ONO RAB LE DEBO RAH O AKES EVANS, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
This suit concerns the validity and extent of an ease ment desig nating a flood z one on private pr operty

as par t of a flood- control projec t. Appellants Fred O. Placke, Jr., J ohn L . Placke, Willi a m M. Pla c ke , Pl a c ke & Co. , I nc ., Do ro thy Pla c ke and Sue Pla c ke su e d to have de c lare d v oid the ea sement m ad e i nfa v o r o f ap p el l ee L ee -F ay et t e C o u n t i es W
. C
. I
. D. # 1 a/ k / a Lee- Fa y et t e C ounties Cummi ns Creek Water Control a nd I mprovement District #1 (“the District”). The P l ac kes alternatively

soug ht to have the boundar ies of the e aseme nt defined at specified e levations, one of wh ic h w a s th e e le vatio n at whic h the Pla c ke s a lle g e d th a t th e Di str ic t ha d a ba nd on e d th e e a se me nt. The District soug ht a decla ration that the ease ment was valid and cove red la nds up to the elevation of the top of the da

m. The District reque sted that the court adopt a metes and bounds descr iption of the e a se me nt s e tti ngthe e a se me nt’ s b ound ary a lon g a c on tou r l ine e ve n w iththe top of the dam.2 The district cour

t gr anted the District’s motion for summary judgme nt, declar ed the
ease ment valid and not a

bandoned, and adopted the survey delineating the boundary of the e aseme nt
a s th e e le vatio n e ve n w iththe top of the Di str ic t’ s f

loo d- c on tr ol d a m. On appe al, the Placke s contend that the court err ed by g ranting summary

judgme nt be c a us e the Di str ic t fa ile d to est a bli sh a s a matt e r o f l aw the a bs e nc e of a mbi g uit y in t he e a se me nt, the elevation leve l of the ease ment, a lack of abandonme nt a bove a lower

elevation, or the exist ence of a pr escr iptive ease ment. We affir m the judgme nt in part, reve rse the judg ment in part, and r emand the c a us e fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s.
BACK GR OUND On Novembe r 2 4 , 1 9 56, Fr ed O. Placke and B ertha Placke e x ecute d an ea sement favor ing the District. Fr ed O. Placke was the Dis trict’s president at t he time. The e aseme nt cover ed five tra cts of land, whic h are collectively the Placke far

m. T he ea sement ce ded to the District the rig ht to inundate a portion of the Plac ke fa rm when ne eded f

or flood-c ontrol purpos es . I t gr anted the Di str ic t
the ri g h t, p r iv il e g e an d

a u th o r it y to u s e s a id

la n d f o r th e in s ta ll a ti o n , o p era tion, maintenanc e and inspection of the following descr ibed works and measure s, and for the s torag e of water s that may be impounded by

any dam or other

rese rvoir structur e descr ibed below: F lood water reta rding structure ; portion of the sediment a nd flood wate r d e te nti on

po ols ; ma ximum wate r c ov e ra g e a pp ro xima te ly

27 7 s ur fa c e a c re s; clea ning se diment pool are a of tree s and brush, se lecting fill material fr om sediment pool if neede d. App el l an t s ar e the suc cessor s-in-title to Fre d and B ertha Placke on the Plac ke fa rm. Simi lar
e a se me nts we re g ra

nte d to the Di str ic t by

surr ound ingland ow ne rs .For convenie nce, w e will ref er to e levation in fee t above mea n sea le vel as “ ft.” 1 3 The dam w as completed in 1958 downstream from the Placke far m. The ele vation of the top of the dam is 449.9 fee t above mea n sea le vel. The e levation of the e merg ency spillway 1 is 445.5 ft. The level of a 100-y ear flood is 445.8 ft, and the 500-y ear flood level is 446.8 ft. During the exist ence of the dam, the wate rs of the c ree k have r isen only to 444 ft—below the leve l of the
emer g ency

spillway and the 100- y ear

flood. I n 1973, the District expressly rele ased the ease ment on adjac ent prope rty above the elevation of 447 ft
. I n 1998, the Plackes soug ht a similar partial re lease of the e aseme nt on the Placke f arm, but the District de clined. The Placke s sued, complaining t hat the lac k of ce rtainty reg ardingthe location of the
ease ment restric t s t h ei r use a nd enjoy ment of the Placke far

m. They soug ht to have the e aseme nt de c lare d v oid

be c a us e it v iol a te d th e statut e -o f- fr a ud s r e qu ir eme nt that e a se me nts de sc ri be wi th
cer tainty their location. They

argued that the ex istence of the dam without a valid ea sement ca used them irrepa

rable harm a

nd soug ht damag e for the unauthorized impoundment of water on their land. Al t er n ati vely , they

soug ht to have the e aseme nt defined a long a line encompa ssing 176 a cre s as descr ibed in a sketc h cre ated at or nea r the c reat i o n o f the e aseme nt; the sketch indicate s that 176
a c r e s o f t h e P l a c k e f

ar m ar e b e l o w 4 4 5 f

t

—t h e e l e v a t i o n o f t h e d e t e n t i o n p o n d
. ( T h e s k e tc h a lso shows the ac rea g e below the elevations of the sediment pool (2 ac res b elow 435.7 ft) and the sediment rese rve pool ( 3 acr es below 436.5 ft)) . Alternatively , the Plackes soug ht to have the c ourt decla re that the District had ab an doned any ease ment on land above 447 ft by rele asing a similar
ease ment on neig hboring proper ty above the same e levation.4 The District de nied that the ease ment’s descr iption wa s inadequate, and a sserted that the gene ral description suffice d until the dam was buil t. The District asser ted t hat t he buil ding of the dam, which w as the re ason for obtaining the flooding ease ment, fix ed the b o u ndary of the
ease ment at the ele vation of the top of the da m. Alternatively , the Distri ct co n t ended that it had obtained an e aseme nt by presc ription a nd that the Plackes we re e stopped from c laiming a ny other
ease ment boundary

line. The District c ounterc laimed for a decla ration that t he easement is fix ed at the e le vatio n o f t

he top of the dam, w hic h is 44 9. 9 f t. Both pa rties moved for

summary j u d gm ent. The Plac kes moved for a par tial summary judgme nt that the ease ment was void a nd that the District did not have the rig ht to impound
wate r on the Pla c ke fa

rm purs ua

nt to the e a se me nt. Th e Di str ic t mov e d for su mm ary ju dg me nt, urg ing that the ease ment did not fail but was a “blanke t” easement, t hat t he District had a cquire d a presc riptive ea sement throug h its forty -y ear use of the e aseme nt by

virtue of the da

m’s construction
e ve n th ou g h f

loo dw a te rs ha d n ot r e a c he d th e top of the dam, and that the Pla c ke s we re e sto pp e d to deny the ea sement.

Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

g ra nte d summ ary jud g me nt to the Di str ic t. I n it s f ina l ju dg me nt, the c ourt c on c lud e d th a t th e e a se me nt w a s v a lid and no t vo id, that it wa s no t lim ite d to 1 76 a c re s, and that the District did not abandon its ea sement. The c ourt dec lare d that the ea sement cove red the 292.9 acr es that fe ll below the elevation o f t h e t o p o f the District’s dam, a nd established the boundary at the metes a

nd bou n d s d escr iption of such proper ty contained in a

survey the District prepa red ( based on the contour line e ven with the top of the da m).5 DI SCU SSIO N Th e Pla c ke s c on te nd that the dis tr ic t c ourt ma de pr oc e dura l and

su bs tanti ve e rr or s in g ranting the District’s motion for summary judgme nt. They

contend that the e aseme nt description
wa s ambi g uo us and

c re a te d a qu e sti on of fa c t th a t sh ou ld h a ve pr e ve nte d a su mma ry jud g me nt. They also contend that the evidenc e does not e stablish as a matter of law that the pa

rties intended that th e top of

the dam w ou ld d e fi ne the e le vation of th e bo unda ri e s o f t he e a se me nt. Th e ir
rema ining issues c oncer

n the aba ndonment issue. Their c hief a rg ument on that issue is that the court should not have g rante d summ ar y j u d gment ag ainst their af firmative plea

of aba ndonment of the lands above 447 ft bec ause the District’s motion fa iled to a ddress this plea; they further argue that the Di st ri ct faile d to sh owany inj ur y fr om l imi tin g the e a se me nt t o 4 47 ft and fa ile d to sh owa s a matter of la

w entitlement to presc riptive ea sement at a highe r ele vation.
Stand ard of review

We review de novo the district court’s g rant of a motion for summary

judgme nt. See FM Pr op s. Op e ra tin g Co. v . City of A us tin , 2 2 S
. W
. 3 d 8 6 8 , 8 7 2 (T ex . 2 0 0 0 ). W h en re v i ew i n g a mot ion fo r s umm ary

jud g me nt, we take the no nmo va nt’ s e vid e nc e a s tr

ue , in du lg e e ve ry

re a so na ble infere nce in f

avor of the nonmovant, and r esolve a ll doubts in favor of the nonmovant. Nix on v . M r. P r o p . Mg mt. Co. , 6 9 0 S. W. 2 d 5 4 6 , 5 4 8

- 4 9 ( T e x. 1 9 8 5 )
. U n d e r T e xa s Ru le o f

Ci v il Pr o c e d

u re 166a(c ), the moving party bear s the burden to show that no g enuine issue of m ater ial fac t exi sts and that it is e nti tle d to jud g ment as a matter of law. Te x. R. C iv. P. 1 66 a (c ); Haase v . Glazner , 62 S.W. 3d 79 5, 79 7 ( Te x. 20 01 ); Rhone-P oulenc, I nc. v. Ste el , 9 9 7 S. W. 2 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 3 ( T e x. 1 9 9 9 )
. We aff irm the summary

judgme nt if any

of the theor ies prese nted to the trial court and pre serve d for6

appellate revie w ar e meritorious. Cincinnati L ife Ins. Co. v. Cates , 9 2 7 S. W. 2 d 6 2 3 , 6 2 6 ( T e x. 1996). When the opposing sides in a case both move for summary judgme nt and one motion is g rante d and the other denied, the appellate cour t should determine all questions pre sented a nd may
reve rse the tr ial court judg ment and render suc h judgme nt as the trial cour t should have re ndere d, including rende ring judgme nt for the other movant. Commissioners Court v. Agan , 940 S.W .2d 77, 81 (Tex. 1997).
Va lidi tyof t he e as e m e nt

The District a sserte d t h re e theor ies by which it acquir ed an e aseme nt from the Plackes: by

express ag ree m en t , b y est oppel, or by presc ription. Bec ause the district court did not sp e c if y on whi ch g ro un ds it f

ound the e a se me nt, we mus t e xplor e wh e the r t he re c or d s up po rt s fi nd ingthe e a se me nt v a lid a s a ma tte r o f l aw und e r a

ny of the se the or ie s. Exp re ss e as e ment The statute of fra

uds and statute of c onvey ance s require that ag ree ments to convey la n d o r anin te r e s t i nla

n d b e in w r it in g . T e x. B u s . & Co m. Co d e A n n . § 2 6
. 0 1 ( We s t 2 0 0 2 ) ; T e x. Prop. Cod e An n . § 5.021 (West 2004). An express ea sement is an intere st in land to which the statute of fr auds applies. Pick v . Bartel , 659 S.W. 2d 63 6, 63 7 (T e x. 19 83 ); W est Beac h Marina, Ltd. v. Erdeljac , 94 S.W
. 3 d 2 4 8 , 2 6 4 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.). I f an e aseme nt does not suff iciently descr ibe the intere st convey ed, the c onvey ance is void. Pick, 659 S.W .2d at 637; Erdeljac , 9 4 S. W.3 d at 2 64
. As lo nga s th e tr a c t of land that w ill be burd e ne d b y an e xpre ss7

e a se me nt i s su ff

ic ie ntl y ide nti fi e d, ho we ve r, an e xac t de sig na tio n o f l oc a tio n o f t

he ease ment

is
unnece ssary . Se e Vi ns on v . B ro wn , 80 S.W .3d 221, 227 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.).

T h e f a c t t h a t th e p r e c is e d im e n s io n s o f ane a s e me n t a

r e u n c e rta in

d o e s n o t a

u th o r iz e the c ourt to ig no re the ri g ht g ra

nte d if the e a se me nt is s us c e pti ble to a re a so na ble c on str uc tio n a s to its true intent a

nd meaning
. Id .; see also Erdeljac , 94 S.W .3d at 264. Gene ral languag e spec ify ing a purpose for the e aseme nt without defining its precise paramete rs has been held sufficie nt to confe r
an ea sement. See Houston Pipe Line Co. v. Dwyer , 374 S.W .2d 662, 663 (Tex. 1964) (“rig ht of way to lay , maintain, operate, re pair a nd remove a Pipe L ine for t he tra nsportation of g as”) ; se e als o Vinson , 80 S.W .3d at 225 (use as “a park located about five hundred (500) fee t East of B lock No. One ( 1) of a

subdivision . . . which park extends to a cove on the L ake and t he boundaries of whic h park to be marke d and esta blished by

said G.A. Dr aper .”); Adams v. Nors worthy Ranch, Ltd. , 975 S.W. 2d 42 4, 42 8 ( Te x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 98 , n o pet .) (“eas e me nt o f p a ssi ngin a nd a lon g a c e rt a in way or roa d . . . acr oss all of said [Norsworthy ] Ranch . . . along the route or routes that will rende r t h e land [of Adamse s] . . . m ost conveniently acc essible to the Austin and Hamilton P ool road” ). Th e un de fi ne d b ound ari e s o f a n e a se me nt g ra

nte d f or a sp e c if ic purp os e c a

n b e c ome fi xed by

the us e of land for

the pre scribed pur

pose with the co n s en t o r ac q u iesce nce of the prope rty

owner . See Dwyer , 3 74 S.W. 2d

a t 66 6; Vinson , 8 0 S. W.3 d at 22 7- 28 ; Adams , 975 S.W .2d at 428. I n Dwyer , the supreme c ourt revie wed a pipel ine ea sement that did not descr ibe its dimensions by metes and b o u n d s o r even g ive a c ourse or direc tion for the pipe. Dwyer , 3 7 4 S
. W
. 2 d a t 6 6 3
. T h e supr e me
c ourt he ld t hat th e pip e lin e c omp any ’s ri g ht to the e a se me nt ne ve rt he le ss be c a me fi xed

and c e rt a in when the c ompany

constructed t h e pipeline with the consent and a cquiesc ence of the landow ner.8

Id
. at 666. Courts ha

ve found simil ar f

ix ation of the bounda

ries of a n ease ment based on the use of the land for

the purpose spe cified by

the ea sement. See V

inson , 80 S.W.3 d at 2 27 -2 8; Adams , 975 S.W .2d at 428. The e x press e aseme nt in this case does not define the ex act pa rame ters of the portion of the Placke far

m subject to the ea sement, but provides the means by which they may be found. The lang uag e of the express ease ment undisputedly identifies the boundar ies of the proper ty on which the ease ment is g rante d, establishes the flood-contr ol purpose for the ea sement, and e stimates that 277 ac re s will be cover ed. In a supplementa l response to the D istrict’s motion for summary judgme nt, the P lacke s state t hat t hey “do not deny that [t he Dist rict] has an ease ment. The nature of and sc ope of the ease ment are in dispute.”

Be cause the ea sement identifies t h e p arcel on which the ease ment impinges a nd descr ibes the use of

th e p roperty

that will define the bounda ries of the ease ment, it provided the
means at the t ime of drafting the easement for finding the boundar ies of the e aseme nt based on that
use. This de scription there fore satisfies the statute of fra uds and rende rs the ease ment valid and not void. See V

inson , 80 S.W .3d at 227-28. But the de termination that t h e ex p ress e aseme nt validly permitted the use of

the proper ty to de fine the boundarie s of the ease ment does not e stablish the boundaries of the ea sement
a s a ma tte r o f l aw. Whe n a

n e xpre ss e a se me nt i s d e sc ri be d in g e ne ra l te rm s w ith ou t sp e c if y ingits location, the rig ht to select the location usually belong s to the g rantor. Id . at 22 8. B ut t his ri g ht m

us t be exerc ised in a re asonable manner and, if the g rantor of

an ea sement fails to e stablish its location,I n these c ases, the loc ation of the e aseme nts were decide d at trials on t he mer its. See 2 Houston Pipe Line Co. v. Dwyer , 374 S.W .2d 662, 666 (Tex. 1964) (rever sing summar y judgme nt and re mand ingfo r t

ri a l) ; Vi ns on v . B ro wn , 80 S.W .3d 221, 227 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.) (a lth ou g h c ourt

de c ide d s ome iss ue s a s matte r o f l aw) ; Adams v. Norswor thy R a n ch , Ltd. , 975 S.W. 2d 42 4, 42 7 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 19 98 , no p e t.) (b e nc h tr ia l) ; see also Vrabel v . Donahoe Cree k W ate rsh e d A uth or ity , 545 S.W. 2d 53 , 54 (T e x. Civ . App .— Au sti n 197 6, no wr it) (d e c ide d v a lid ity of ea sement by

partial summary

judgme nt, held trial on location of e aseme nt). The c onstruction of the dam disti n gu i s h es t his case f rom the Vrabel

c a se , in wh ic h th is 3 Court found void the g rant of a n ease ment over a s i m ilarly undiffer entiated 111- acr e portion of a 250-ac re tra ct. Vrabel , 54 5 S.W. 2d a t 54
. Un lik e the dam in thi s c a se that w a s c omp le te d r e la tiv e ly soon after the ea sement wa s g rante d, the dam in Vrabel was not built during the time r equire d by the ease ment; the Vrabel op ini on , wh e n re a d wi th do c ume nts fi le d in that c a se and inc lud e d a s e xhibi ts in this rec ord, reve als that the court was not pe rsuade d by the contention that an ea sement boundar y could be f ound based on the proposed he ight of the unbuilt dam. Se e id
. 9 the g rante e may

do so. Id
. The g rante e’s use of the e aseme nt, with the consent or a cquiesc ence of the g rantor, is suff

icient to establish the ea sement’s location. Id
. The issue at hand is whether the District sho we d conclusively that the Plackes acquie sced or co n s en t ed t o impoundment of floodwater s even w ith the top of the dam. L and set
a sid e fo r p ote nti a l f

loo din g is n ot a s tan g ibl y or vis ibl y us e d a s la

nd that is us e d f

or a ro a d, the path of a pipe line, or a park; t hat i s, the di mensions of a road, pipeline, or a par k are more obvious and clea rly define d than the dimensions of the land ove r which f loodwater s might be—but have neve r been—impounded by a structur e downstre am. See D wyer , 374 S.W .2d at 666 (pipeline) ; Vinson , 80 S.W .3d at 227-28 (pa

rk); Adams , 975 S.W .2d at 428 (roa d). The District a rg ues that all lands 2 below the top of the 449.9-ft dam c ould be inundated a nd are thus being used as a buffe r for potential floodwate r re tention. The Placke s argue for lower le vels, based on the hi g hest flood on re cord ( 444 3 ft), the he ight of

the detention pond (445 ft ), t he heig ht of the eme rg ency spillway (445.5 ft), a

nd flood-plain ele vations (445.8 for a 100-y ear flood and 446.8 for a 500-y ear

flood). We must review10

whether the re cord de monstrates as a matter of law, not just the pot ential l evel of inundation, but the level of inundation to which the Plackes c onsented or a cquiesc ed.

Th e Pla c ke s d o no t dis pu te the he ig ht of the dam bu t wh e the r the top of the dam is the re levant ele vation for the f lood-contr o l ease ment. They rely on the abse nce of

an expressed intention that the top of the dam set t h e el ev at i o n of the e aseme nt, the siz e of the orig inal are a d es cr i b ed , the absenc e of use of the proper ty to store floodwate rs, a letter from a state officia l, a
r e g u l a t o r y m an u a l , f

l o o d d a t a , an d t h e D i s t r i c t ’ s r e l e a s e o f

ane a s e m e n to na d

j a c e n tp r o p e rt y. Although the construction of the dam may have f ix ed the maximum height of floodwate rs that ca

n be impounded by

the dam on the Placke far m, it did not fix , as a matter of law , the ea sement at the he ight of the top of the dam. There is e vidence reg arding possible e levations for the ea sement, but nothing c onclusive. The r ecor d lacks dire ct evidenc e of wh at t h e P lacke s understood or a cce pted re g ardingthe level at which t he dam would hold back f loodwater s—whether it was limit ed to the emer g ency spillway , rea ched the top of the dam, or was some other leve l. The Di str ic t bu ilt

the dam w hil e Pla c ke wa s p re sid e nt of the Di str ic t and

the dam is vis ibl e fr om a distance, but a ctions by

the par ties relativel y

contempora

neous to the g rant of the ease ment and construction of the dam are inconclusive. Rely ing on the heig ht of the District’s dam would subject 292 acr es to the ease ment, while the map showing the inundation at the level of the detention pond
c ov e rs 17 6 acres ; ne ith e r i s e qu a l to the “ a pp ro xima te ly ” 27 7 a c re s e sti ma te d in the e a se me nt. Floodwaters have been impounded by the dam only

up to 444 ft on the Placke f arm; the Placke far

m has neve r bee n inundated to the eme rg ency spillway , much less to the t o p o f t he dam. B ut the purpose of

the dam has a lway s been to impound floodwate rs, not to cre ate a constant re servoir. The11

District’s 1973 re lease of ea sements on adjac ent land above the 447-ft leve l is some evidence that the ea sement may

have be en hig her on those la nds, but this is not conclusive evidence of what the orig inal level wa s on those lands or what the level was orig inally or i s now on the Placke f arm. The 1998 letter fr om state conser vationist J o h n Bu rt discussing va rious possible levels at which the District should retain the e aseme nt is simil arly inconclusive; it does not establish as a matter of law the top of the dam (or any other l ev el ) as t h e ex isting leve l for the e aseme nt, although he does strong ly indicate that he believes the ease ment cover s at l east up to 447 ft. The P lacke s quote from the National Watershed Manual’s provision that the state conser vationist will require an ea sement to the cre st of the emer g ency spillway or t he 100-y ear

flood; howeve r, this provision does not prohibit the conser

vationist from obtaini n g a h i gh er e aseme nt. Whi le a f act- finder at trial might deter mine that the Plackes a cquiesc ed to inundation up to the t op of t he dam, the evidence does not show the a b s en ce o f a genuine issue of materia l fac t reg ardingthe level of the express ea sement established by

the District’s use a

nd the Placke’ s acquie scenc e to that use.
Easem ent by estoppel or presc ription

The summary

judgme nt that a

n ease ment exis ts similarly cannot stand on the theories of ea sement by

estoppel o r p re scription beca use the e vidence does not establish the abse nce of g e nu ine iss ue s o f m ate ri a l f a c t on e sse nti a l e le me nts of

the se the or ie s. The doctrine of ease ment by estoppel holds that the owner of th e a l l ege d servient estate ma y be estoppe d from deny

ing the exis tence of an e aseme nt by making repr esentations that have been acte d upon by the owner of the alleg ed dominant estate
. See V inson , 80 S.W .3d at 229. The e lements nec essar

y to cre ate a

n ease ment by

estoppel ar e as f

ollows: (1) a re prese ntation was12

communicated, e ither by word or action, to the promisee; (2) the c ommunication was believe d; and (3) the pr omisee re lied on the communication. Storms v. Tuck, 579 S.W .2d 447, 452 (Tex.1979). These e lements apply

at the time the communicati o n creating the alleg ed ea sement is made. Lakeside Launche

s, Inc. v . Austin Y

acht Club, Inc. , 750 S.W .2d 868, 872 (Tex. App.—Austin 1988, writ denied) . But the rec ord lacks conclusive proof that the Plackes re prese nted to the District that they wer e g ranting an ea sement to the top of the dam. Even assuming that the dam is visible and the total heig ht was known, ther e is no definitive showing that the Plackes understood, when g ranting the ea sement, that floodwaters would rise to the top of the t o-be- built dam and not just up t o the
emer g ency spillway or somewher e in be tween the spillway and the dam heig ht. Wi thout conclusive pr oo f o f a

re pr e se ntatio n b y

the Pla c ke s to the Di str ic t r e g ard ingthe he ig ht o f t he e a se ment , summary judgme nt on this basis i s inappropriate. The re cord similarly

does not show the District entitled to summary judgme nt on a presc riptive ea sement of lands up to the top of t he dam. A pe rson ac quires a pr escr iptive ease ment by the op e n, no tor iou s, c on tin uo us , e xclu siv e , a

nd a dv e rs e us e of so me on e e lse ’s land fo r t e n y e a rs . Ma c k v . La nd ry , 22 S.W.3 d 524 , 531 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 20 00 , n o p e t.) ; Stallman v. Newman , 9 S.W .3d 243, 248 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) . The owne r of the prope rty must have notice of the adverse c laim. Sc hu ltz v . S ha tto , 2 3 7 S. W. 2 d

6 0 9 , 6 1 4 ( T e x. 19 51 ); see also Stall man , 9 S.W .3d at 243. Although the heig ht of t he dam ha s been a ppare nt for more than ten y ear s, the record does not show that the Dis trict openly and notoriously

claimed the ri g ht t o r e ta in f

loo dw a te rs up to t

he le ve l of the top of the dam or that th e Pla c ke s h a d n oti c e of thi s claim. This is not li ke a c ase in whic h a roa d has been used and maintained by the public acr oss land13

fo r m ore tha

n fifty y ear s. Se e Sc hu ltz , 2 3 7 S. W. 2 d a t 6 1 2

- 1 4
. H e r e , th e u s e s h o w n is mere ly the potential for inundation by impoundment of floodwater s; the rec ord does not cle arly show to what level of inundation the bui lding of the dam provides noti ce. Actual inundation by floodwate rs has
on ly oc c ur re d u p to 44 4 f

t. T he re a re g e nu ine iss ue s o f m a te rial fact con cern ingthe op e nn e ss, notoriousness, and adve rsity of the District’s possession of t he easement it claims up to the top of the dam. We c onclude that, althoug h the evidenc e is a dequate to support summary judgme nt that t h e ex press e aseme nt was validly g rante d, the evidenc e adduc ed in the summary judgme nt proce eding does not support a findingof a p ar t i cu lar e levation at which the building and maintenanc e of the dam established the ea sement. The district c ourt did not err by concludingthat the ea s em en t was valid, and theref ore did not er

r by denying the Plackes’ c ontrary motion. The district court er

red by g ranting summary judgme nt that the ea sement is not limi ted to 176 acr es and that it c ov e rs the 29 2. 9 a c re s th a t f a ll b e low the e le vatio n o f t

he top of the dam.
Aba ndonm e nt

The Placke s contend by

their third issue that the district cour t erre d by g ranting summary judgme nt ag ainst their claim that the District a bandoned the ease ment on the Placke f arm for e levations above 447 ft. The Pl acke s asser t that the judg ment is errone ous beca use the District failed to a ddress the a

b an d o n m en t i ssue in its summ ary judgme nt motion. A sum mary judgme nt cannot be g rante d or affirmed on g rounds not expressly set out in the m otion or re sponse. Stiles v. Res o lution T

rust Corp. , 8 67 S.W. 2d

24 , 2 6 ( Te x. 19 93 ); se e als o Tex. R. C iv. P. 166a(c) ( “The motion for summary

judgme nt shall state the spec ific g rounds there for.” ).14 Th e Di str ic t re pli e s that it did no t ha ve the burd e n to dis pr ov e a ba nd on me nt b e c a

us e the Plackes’ ple a

o f a b a n d o nment was a

n aff irmative def

ense. O rdinarily , to ga in summary judgme nt ag ainst a nonmovant’s c laims for re lief, a summar y -judg men t movant must di sprove at least one element of the nonmovant’s claims as a matter of law
. Friendswood Dev. Co. v . McD ade + Co. , 926 S.W. 2d 28 0, 28 2 ( Te x. 19 96 ); Doe v. Boys C lubs of Greater Dallas, Inc. , 9 0 7 S. W. 2 d 4 7 2 , 4 7 7 ( T e x. 1995). B ut the burdens a

re differe nt reg arding a nonmovant’s aff irmative defense. Once a movant establishes its rig ht to summary judgme nt a s a matter of law on its c laims, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to present e vid en ce raising a g enuine issue of materia l fac t reg ardingits affirmative defe nse; a mer e pleading of an aff irmative defe nse will not ave rt summary judgme nt. KPMG Peat Marwick v . Harrison County Housing Fin. Corp. , 9 88 S.W. 2d 74 6, 74 9 ( Te x. 19 99 ); Brownlee v. Brownlee , 6 65 S.W. 2d

11 1, 11 2 (T e x. 19 84 ); Parker v . Dodge , 9 8 S. W. 3 d 2 9 7 , 3 0 0 ( T e x. A p p . — H o u s t o n[1 s tD i s t
. ] 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.) ; W i l s o n v. Ge n. Motors Acce

ptance Corp. , 897 S.W .2d 818, 823 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ). Aba ndonment is ordinarily

an af firmative de fe ns e, a lth ou g h it

is n ot e xpre ssl y

lis te d amon g the a ff

ir ma tiv e de fe ns e s in

Te xas R ule of Civ il Procedur e 94. See San J

acinto Sand Co. v

. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. , 4 2 6 S. W. 2 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 4 ( T e x. Civ. App.—Houston 1968, writ ref’ d n.r.e.)
.

Th e c ri tic a l pr oc e dura l f

a c t is that th e Pla c ke s p le d aband onme nt a s p art of the ir reque st that the court decla re that the Dis trict’s abandonment of the e aseme nt above 447 f t set the
ease ment’s eleva

tion at 447 ft. I t is their fourth cause of action in their first amende d petition, not part of the ir answe r to the District’s c ounterc laim for dec laratory relief
. Thus, in this case, abandonme nt is part of a c laim for dec laratory relief , n ot merely

an af firmative de fense . The15

District, as the defe ndant, there fore had the bur den to disprove in its summary -judg ment motion at least one element of the Plackes’ abandonme nt claim. See F riendswood , 926 S.W .2d at 282. B ut the District’s motion does not mention the P lacke s’ claim that the Dis trict abandone d its easement above 447 f

t by rele asing ease ments above that elevation on adja ce n t p ro perty . The c losest the District comes is ar g uing that its co n s t ru ct i on of the dam give s it an ease ment by presc ription by virtue o f fo rty -plus y ear s of use; but that does not addr ess the ef fec t of the par

tial relea se of
e a se me nts on a dja c e nt pr op e rt y . T he Pla c ke s r e ite rate d th e ir a ba nd on me nt c la im i n th e ir

re sp on se to the District’s motion for summary judgme nt. The district co u rt ex pressly g rante d summary jud g me nt t

hat th e Di str ic t di d n ot a

ba nd on its e a se me nt. Be cause the District’s motion failed to addre ss the Plackes’ c laim for a de clar ation t h a tt h e D i s t r i c t a

b an d o n e d t h e e a s e m e n t b y p art i a l l y r e l e a s i n g t h e e a s e m e n to na d j a c e n tp r o p e rt y, we must reve rse the district court’s gr ant of summary judgme nt ag ainst that claim without evaluating the evidentiar

y underpinning s of that judg ment. See Stiles , 867 S.W. 2d a t 26 ; se e als o Tex. R. C iv. P. 166a(c)
. CO NC LU SION

Al tho ug h th e Di str ic t re c e ive d a va lid e xpre ss e a se me nt o ve r t

he Pla c ke fa

rm de sp ite the abse nce of

lang uag e def

ining the pr ecise dimensions of the ea sement, per missibl y leavingfuture
a c tio ns to d e te rm ine the pr e c ise bo un da ri e s, we c on c lud e that the e vid e nc e he re do e s no t e sta bli sh
as a matter of law

those dimensions in thi s case . Acc ording ly , the district court did no t err by
awa rding summary judgme nt that the ease ment is va lid and not void. The rec ord, howe ver, c ontains
e vid e nc e re ve a lin g g e nu ine iss ue s o f m a te ri a l f a c t c on c e rn ingthe e le vatio n at whic h th e pa rt ie s’16

conduc t s u b s eq u ently

set the ea sement; ac cording ly , the district court e rre d by g ranting summary judgme nt that the ease ment was not limited to 176 acr es and that it include d all lands below the le vel of the top of the da

m. We further c onclude that the distr i ct co u rt err ed by g ranting summary judgme nt that the District did not abandon any ease ment on lands above 447 ft bec ause the District did not include a re quest for suc h in its m otion for summary judgme nt. Acc ording ly , we a ffirm that pa rt of the judg ment finding that the Dis trict rec eived a valid ease ment, but reve rse the judg ment in all o t h er respe cts. We remand this ca use for further pr oc e e din g s.

J an P. Patterson, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Affir med in Part; Reverse d and Remande d in Part Filed: May

5, 2005