NO. 12-09-00202-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

 §

IN RE: THE SHED, L.L.C.,

§ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR

 §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, The Shed, L.L.C., complains of an order finding it in contempt and 

imposing a $500.00 fine. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we deny 

The Shed’s request for relief.

BACKGROUND

In the underlying lawsuit, Edom Wash ’N Dry, L.L.C. sued its neighbor, The 

Shed, L.L.C., and Mary Ellen Malone, an owner of The Shed, to resolve a dispute over an 

access easement that crosses The Shed’s property for the benefit of Edom Wash ’N Dry. 

After a jury trial, the trial court signed a judgment declaring that Edom Wash ’N Dry 

holds an easement appurtenant across The Shed’s property for ingress and egress from 

Farm to Market Road 279. The court permanently enjoined The Shed from “restricting, 

blocking, [or] interfering with [Edom Wash ’N Dry’s] use in any manner, directly or 

indirectly, of the right of pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress across the 

easement.” On appeal, this court reversed the portions of the trial court judgment 

awarding Edom Wash ’N Dry exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, remanded the 

cause for a new trial on attorney’s fees, and affirmed the trial court judgment in all other 

respects. The Shed, L.L.C. v. Edom Wash ’N Dry, L.L.C., No. 12-07-00431-CV, 2009 

Tex. App. LEXIS 1853 (Tex. App.–Tyler Mar. 18, 2009, pet. denied).

Asserting that The Shed and Malone violated the trial court’s injunction, Edom 

Wash ’N Dry filed a motion for contempt. At a hearing on the motion, Edom Wash ’N 
2

Dry presented the testimony of Thomas Beal, Jr., who is a courier for Federal Express, 

and Earl A. Berry, Jr., who is a member of Edom Wash ’N Dry. Berry’s office is in the 

building owned by Edom Wash ’N Dry located on the property that enjoys the easement. 

Beal explained that one day when he was making a delivery to Berry, he was approached 

by someone called “Slim” who opened his passenger side door and told him not to drive 

through the parking lot in front of The Shed. Slim told him he had to go around The 

Shed’s property and come in through the FM 314 entrance. Slim also told him he was 

driving too fast and “knocking holes in his parking lot.” As Beal was leaving after he 

made the delivery, Slim “launched himself” off The Shed’s porch and ran to the truck. 

Slim told him that Edom Wash ’N Dry had lost the case and Beal could not drive through 

The Shed’s parking lot to deliver to Berry. Using profanity, Slim also told Beal he was 

going to report him. Toward the end of the exchange, a woman whom Beal knew to be 

an employee of The Shed walked up to him and told him he was not allowed to go 

through the parking lot because Edom Wash ’N Dry lost the court case. Beal also 

testified that Slim yelled at him and he felt threatened. 

Berry testified that several vehicles have at times blocked the easement, but he did 

not know who owned the vehicles or if they were customers of The Shed. He also 

testified that a Coca Cola truck had blocked the easement to make a delivery to The Shed. 

After hearing the evidence, the trial court found that Malone had not violated the 

injunction. However, the trial court found The Shed in contempt for interfering with 

Edom Wash ’N Dry’s use of the easement when a Federal Express delivery truck left the 

Edom Wash ’N Dry property on February 20, 2009. For this violation, the court ordered 

The Shed to pay a $500.00 fine.

In this original proceeding, The Shed requests this court to issue a writ of 

mandamus requiring the trial court to vacate its contempt order. The Shed also filed a 

motion for emergency stay, which this court granted on July 1, 2009.

PREREQUISITES TO MANDAMUS

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only in limited circumstances. 

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus will 

issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no other adequate remedy at law. 

Id. at 839. A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and 

unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law. Id. In other words, the 
3

relator must establish that the trial court could reasonably have reached only one 

decision. Id. at 840. Contempt orders are not appealable. Ex parte Rose, 704 S.W.2d 

751, 752 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (orig. proceeding). Moreover, contempt orders that 

do not involve confinement cannot be reviewed by writ of habeas corpus. In re Long, 

984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding) (op. on reh’g). Consequently, the 

only possible relief is a writ of mandamus. Id. Therefore, the sole question for our 

determination is whether the contempt order constitutes an abuse of discretion.

ABUSE OF DISCRETION

The Shed asserts that the judgment’s declaratory relief lacks the requisite 

command language and therefore is not enforceable by contempt. The argument misses 

the mark. The Declaratory Judgments Act provides a means for parties to obtain a 

declaration of rights. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 37.004 (Vernon 2008). An 

injunction may be used to enforce those rights. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN.

§ 37.011 (Vernon 2008); Tex. Educ. Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432, 446 (Tex. 

1994). A violation of an injunction is punishable by contempt. Ex parte Jackman, 663 

S.W.2d 520, 524 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1983) (orig. proceeding). Therefore, whether the 

portion of the judgment awarding declaratory relief lacks command language is 

irrelevant.

The Shed argues that the easement belongs to Edom Wash ’N Dry, its agents, 

heirs, successors, and assigns and that the Federal Express employee, Beal, does not fall 

into one of those categories and is not entitled to use the easement. Beal is an invitee,

and the judgment does not expressly enjoin The Shed from interfering with an invitee. 

Therefore, the argument continues, approaching Beal and telling him not to drive through 

The Shed’s property cannot be a violation of the injunction against interfering with Edom 

Wash ’N Dry’s use of the easement. We disagree.

It was undisputed at trial that Edom Wash ’N Dry owns an ingress and egress 

easement across The Shed’s property. Further, the trial court’s judgment specifically 

awarded Edom Wash ’N Dry an easement appurtenant for the purpose of access to and 

from its property. The Shed and its agents, heirs, successors, and assigns were 

“permanently enjoined from restricting, blocking, [or] interfering with [Edom Wash ’N 

Dry’s] use in any manner, directly or indirectly, of the right of pedestrian and vehicular 

ingress and egress across the easement.” 
4

An easement appurtenant attaches to the land. Shipp v. Stoker, 923 S.W.2d 100, 

103 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 1996, writ denied). Whether the rights are granted expressly 

or by implication, an easement includes “the right to do whatever is reasonably necessary 

for full enjoyment of the rights granted.” Marcus Cable Assocs., L.P. v. Krohn, 90 

S.W.3d 697, 701 (Tex. 2002); Whaley v. Cent. Church of Christ, 227 S.W.3d 228, 231 

(Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). 

Edom Wash ’N Dry is a business, and it has subleased portions of its property that 

is served by the easement to an individual and a law firm. It would not be reasonable to 

interpret the court’s order to mean that only Edom Wash ’N Dry can use the easement 

and not Edom Wash ’N Dry’s tenants. The right to use the easement extends to others 

who, by Edom Wash ’N Dry’s permission, may visit its property. Businesses are 

frequented by customers, clients, and deliverymen. Use of the easement by these invitees 

is reasonably necessary to Edom Wash ’N Dry’s enjoyment of the rights granted by the 

easement. The trial court was within its discretion in determining that the easement gave 

Edom Wash ’N Dry the implied right to allow invitees to use the easement. See Krohn, 

90 S.W.3d at 701. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding The 

Shed in contempt for interfering with Edom Wash ’N Dry’s use of the easement or for 

ordering The Shed to pay a $500.00 fine. 

DISPOSITION

Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we deny The Shed’s petition 

for writ of mandamus. Further, the emergency stay imposed by this court’s order of 

July 1, 2009 is hereby lifted.

BRIAN HOYLE

 Justice

Opinion delivered May 28, 2010.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. 

(PUBLISH)