NO. 07-06 -014 6-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D APR IL 30 , 200 8

_________

_________

_________

___ W AY N E PO PE A N D L AU RA PO PE , AP PE LL AN TS V. JO HN K IE L L A HO ME S, JO HN K IE L L A, IND IV ID UA L L Y, KAM H OM E BU ILD ER S, K IELLA F AM ILY , LTD ., KIELL A M AN AGEM EN T, L.C ., APP ELLEES

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 14 6 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF B EL L COU NT Y; NO . 203 ,426- B; H ON ORABLE RI CK M OR RI S, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan ts W ay ne and Laura Pope appeal f ro m a s ummary j udg ment i n fav or

of a p p e ll e e s Jo h n K ie ll a Ho m e s , Jo h n K ie ll a , I n d ivi d u a ll y, K a m H o m e B u il d e rs , K a m Fa m il y, Lt d. , Ki el l a M an ag em en t, L .C ., ( he rei na fte r “ Ki el l a” )
. F i nd i ng n o er ror , w e affi r m.Some d efendants w ere notadded unti l lat er , but thos e dates are notmater ial to 1 our dispo sition of

the ap pea l. Te x . W ate r Code Ann . § 11. 086 (Vernon 200 0). 2 2 Backg ro und The Popes broug ht sui t ag ain st Ki ell a and the Ci ty of Templ e after thei r home was fl o o d e d fo l l o w i n g h e a vy ra i n s . K i e l l a wa s t h e d e v e l o p e r o f B r i a rc re s t , a re s i d e n t i al su b d i v i s i o n s i t u a t e d u p h i l l fro m t h e P o p e s ’ n e i g h b o r h o o d
. W a y n e P o p e a n d o t h e rs h ad oppos ed Br iarcrest ’s co nst ru cti on w hen Ki ell a propose d the su bdi v is ion i n 1996, ex press ing , among othe r conc er ns, pote n ti a l p ro ble ms w it h drain ag e. The Ci ty deni ed Ki e lla a pe rmi t for the s ubdi v is ion thaty ear . Ki ell a made c hang es to ad dress the ex press ed concer ns and, despi te conti nued objecti ons from the Popes and others, the C ity approv ed i ts dev elo pment i n 1997. T he Po pes’ ho me f irst was f lood ed in late A ugust or earlySept em ber 20 01 a f ter a heavy rai n. It w as flooded ag ain in October 2003, agai n after

heavy rai nfall
. The Popes c on te nd t he c on s tr ucti on o f Br i arc res t di v er te d r un off from rai nfa l l , i nc rea s i ng t he v ol um e of w ater i n the adj acentst re et an d ul ti matel y ca usi ng the floodi ng of thei r home. The Popes fil ed s uiton A pr il 12, 2004. The c our t di smi ss ed th eir

cl aims ag ain st the 1 C i ty , an a cti on n otch al l en g ed on ap pe al . The Po pe s ’ a me nd ed p l ea di ng s a s s er te d c l ai ms against Kiella b ased on T exas W ate r Code § 11 .08 6, nuisan ce, tresp ass an d gross 2 neg li g ence.3

By an a mended ans w er , Ki ell a rais ed th e aff ir mati v e defense of l imi tati ons as a bar to th e Pop es’ claims. Kiella f iled mo tions for sum ma ry judgmen t und er section s 166 a(c) and 166 a( i)of the R ule s o f Ci v il Procedu re , attac ki ng the Popes ’ cl aims on numerous grou n d s . By

tradition al mo tion, Kiella asserte d all the Po pes’ claim s against Kiella w ere bar re d by

l imi tati ons. The c our

t g ra nted Ki ell a’smoti ons w it hout spec ify ing the g ro unds on w hic h i t g ra nted them, and s ig ned a tak e- nothi ng j udg ment. This appeal foll ow ed. Ana lysis On ap peal , v ia four i ss ues, the Popes co ntend the t rial co u rter re d by g ra nti ng sum ma ry

ju dg me nt

a gainst the m on their Te x as W ate r Code, tresp ass an d nu isance claims, and e rred by granting su mm aryju dgme nt against the m on all their claims ba sed o n Kiella’s sta tute of li mita ti ons defense. Standa rd of Rev iew Our rev iew

o f a su mm aryju dgme nt is de nov o to deter mine w hether a par ty ’s r ig ht to prev ail i s estab li shed as a matter of law . Tex. R. Ci v . P. 166a( c) ; Cat hey v. Booth, 900 S.W .2d 3 39, 341 (Tex
. 1995)
. W e tak e as tr ue all ev ide nce fav orabl e to the n on- mov ant, and indulge every

reason able inferen ce an d resolve an y d oub t in the n on-m ovant’s favor. Nixo n v. M

r. Pr oper ty Ma nagem ent C o. , 69 0 S. W .2 d 54 6, 54 8- 49 ( Tex
. 19 85 )
. F or a mo v antto prevail on a tradition al mo tion fo r s um ma ry judgmen t, he mustconclusively est abl is h the abs ence of a n y ge n u in e q uest ion of mater ial fact a nd th at he i s e nti tl ed to jud g ment as a matter

of law
. Tex . R . C iv . P. 166a(c ). W here the m ov ant is a defendant, he mus t neg ate a t l eastone ess enti al ele ment of the pla int iff's c ause of act ion . Lik ew is e,4

a defendant w ho c oncl usi v ely es tabl is hes each ele ment of an aff ir mati v e defense is enti tl ed to s ummary

j udg ment. Ran dal

l' s F ood M ar ket s, Inc . v . Johnso n , 8 9 1 S
. W
. 2 d 6 4 0 , 6 4 4 (T e x. 1995)
. Onc e the mov ant h as est abl is hed a ri g ht t o s ummary j udg ment, the n on- mov ant h as the burde n to resp ond to the m otion for sum ma ry judgmen t and presen t any issues w hich woul d precl ude s ummary j udg ment. City of Ho u sto n v. Clea r Cr eek Basi n Aut hor it y, 589 S.W .2 d 671, 678 ( Tex . 197 9)
. Iss ues not e x press ly present ed to the tr ial co urt i n w ri ti ng sha l l no t be c on s i de red on ap pe al as g rou nd s for rev ers al
. Tex
. R
. C i v . P. 16 6a ( c )
. All theor ies i n s uppor

t of, or i n oppos it ion to, a mot ion for s ummary j udg ment mus t be present ed i n w ri ti ng to the t ri al cour t. Casso v. Br

and , 776 S .W .2d 5 51, 5 53 (T ex. 1989 ). A mo tion for sum ma ry

judgmen t mu st expressly presen t the groun ds on w hich i t is made and must sta nd or fall on th ese g ro unds alo ne. Sci ence Spec tr

um, Inc. v. M

ar ti nez , 941 S.W .2d 910 , 912 (Te x . 199 7). W hen , as here , a trial court's orde r g rantin g sum ma ry judgme nt do es not spe cif y the ground s relied upo n, th e revi ewi ng court mu st af f irm summar y judg ment if any

of the summar

y judg ment g ro unds are mer it or iou s . FM Pr oper ties Oper ati ng C o. v . Cit y o f Au sti

n, 22 S .W .3d 8 68, 8 72- 73 ( Tex . 200 0) ; Sta r-Telegram , Inc. v. Doe , 915 S.W .2d 4 71, 4 73 ( Tex . 199 5)
.N o di sc ov er y r ule i ss ue i s i nv olv ed i n thi s c ase. 3 5 Aff ir mati v e D efense of Li mita ti ons W e be gin w ith the Pope s’ fo urth issue , in w hich they assert the trial court erred if it based su mmary

j udg ment on the b ar

of li mita ti ons. W e di sag re e, an d f in d the is sue dispo sitiv e of

the ap pea l. A defendant mov ing for summar y j udg ment on the a ff ir mati v e defense of li mita ti ons has the b urden t o (1 ) conc lus iv ely prov e w hen t he c ause of acti on ac cr ued and ( 2) neg ate the d is cov er

y r ule , i f it appl ies and has been ple aded or other w is e ra is ed. Diver

sicar e Gen
. 3 Par tner , Inc . v . R ubi o, 185 S.W .3d 842 , 846 (Tex. 2005 ); Graham v. Pirkey, 2 1 2 S.W .3d 5 0 7 , 5 10- 11 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 2006, no p et.)
. If a mov ant e sta bli shes thatthe sta tute of li mita ti ons bars a n acti on, t he non- mov ant mus t t hen add uce summar y j udgment proof ra is ing a facti ss ue i n avoid ance of li mita ti ons. Gr aham , 212 S.W .3d a t 510 -1 1. The Popes ’ cl aims ag ain st Ki ell a for nui sanc e, tre spas s and v iol ati on of W ater C ode § 11.086 all hav e a l imi tati ons per iod of two y ears. See T ex . Ci v . Prac . & Re m. C ode An n. § 1 6 .0 0 3 ( Ver non 200 5) ( person must br ing su itfor, inter alia , “ t re s p a s s fo r i nj u r y t o the est ate o r to t he proper ty of another” not l ater

than two y ears after th e day the caus e of act ion ac cr ues) ; Schn eider Nat’ l Car ri er s, Inc . v . Ba tes, 147 S .W .3d 2 64 ( Tex . 200 4) (“ li mita ti ons per iod for a pr iv ate n uis ance cl aim is two y ears” ); Ander s v. Ma ll ar d & Ma ll ar d, Inc ., 817 S. W .2d 9 0, 95 ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 4 Dis t.] 1991, no w ri t) (two- y ear statut e of th li mita ti ons appl ies to cl aims broug ht un der § 11 .086 of Tex as W ater C ode)
.Th e oth er two c ont exts i n w hich th e cate goriz ation as perm ane nt or tem pora ry 4 arises are w hen a court determ ines w het her a particu lar nuisa nce must b e ad dresse d in one suit or a series of

suits (or, phrased dif

feren tly , w het her res judicat a w ill bar a recovery of damag es for nui sanc e w hen t here has been an earl ier recov er y ), and w hen i t det er mines w hether f uture damages are rec ov erabl e i n a n uis ance sui t. S ch n e ide r Na t ’l , 147 S.W .3d at 27 5- 76. 6 T he quest ion is w hen the Po pes’ causes of action accru ed. Accrual of limitation s is a q uest ion of

law
. Schn eider Na t ’l , 147 S.W .3d at 274 -75. W e be gin w ith the Pope s’ nui sanc e c lai m. A

nui sanc e has been defined a s a co ndi ti on th at su b st a n ti all y i nter feres w it h the us e and enj oy ment of l and by ca usi ng unreason abl e disc omfort or annoyance to persons of ordin ar

y se nsi bil it ies
. Id . at 269. The acc ru al of a nui sanc e c lai m depends on w het her the nuisan ce alleged is "pe rman ent " or "te mp orary." A perm ane nt nuisa nce claim acc ru es w hen inj ur

y f irst occ urs or is disc ov ered; a temporar y nuisan ce cl aim acc ru es anew upon ea ch inj ur

y . Id
. As our Supreme C our

t not ed i n i ts re cent S ch n e ide r Na t ional opi nio n, t he dat e of acc ru al of a nui sanc e caus e of acti on for li mita ti ons pur poses i s o ne of three c onseq uence s t h a tre s u ltf ro m t h e c a t e go ri za t io n o f a n u is a n c e a s p e rm a n e n to r t e m p o ra ry. Schn eider 4 Na t ’l , 147 S.W .3d at 275. Di scussing cate goriz ation in the con text of accrual of

the nu isance caus e of act ion , the court there beg an w it h the g eneral ru le that a c ause of acti on ac cr ues a n d l i mi t a t i o n s b e g i n s t o r u n w h e n fa ct s e x i s tt h a ta u t h o r i z e a c l a i ma n tt o s e e kj u d i c i a l re l i e f. Id . at279. C onti nui ng , t he c our t s aid : As nui sanc e c lai ms ar is e onl y upon a substant

ial interfere nce w it h proper ty use, they

no rm a llydo n ot ac cr ue w hen a potent ial so urce is under cons tr uct ion ; i nst ead, a l andow ner “ has the rightt o waitand see w hat t he re sul t w il l be w hen t he i mprov ements are s ubj ect ed to an a ctu al tes t.” But once operati ons beg in and i nter ferenc e oc curs, li mita ti ons runs ag ain st a7

nui sanc e c lai m ju st as ag ain st any o th e r. Id . ( emphasi s i n or ig ina l; i nter nal ci tati ons omitted) W e find the Supreme Cou rt ’s ra ti onal e and lan g uag e direct ly appl ic abl e here. The factual al leg ati ons in the P opes’ peti ti on beg in w it h Ki ell a’s 1996 appl ic ati on for approv al to build Briarcrest. The petitio n the n asse rts: “Plaintif fs and othe rs in their neighborho od were conc er ned t hat t he prospect of a new subdiv is ion w oul d affectthe amount o f runoff w ater t h a two u l d m o v e d i re ct l y fro m t h e propo s e d s u b d i v i s i o n o n t o t h e i r p ro p e rty . P l a i n t i ffs formall y obj ect ed to the proje ct but [Ki ell a] w as per mitt ed to g o forward w it h c onst ru cti on.” T he “actua l test,” S ch n e ide r Na t ’l , 1 4 7 S. W .3 d at27 9 , c a m e in 20 0 1 . T h e f lo o d in g, w hic h was the v er

y i nter ferenc e w it h their

enjoy ment of

their ow n proper

ty the Popes feared, occ ur re d. The summar y j udg ment record make s cle a r the Popes reg arded t he 2001 floodi ng as proof thei r obje ct ion s t o the co nst ru cti on of Br iarcrestw ere well founded. Res pondi ng to an i nter ro g ator y , t he Pop es sta ted a m ember of the Temple Ci ty

Counci l and two C ity engi neers came to their home lat e on the day

of the 2001 f loo din g , af

ter they ca ll ed the C ity . Dur ing thatv is it , t he Pop es “reminde d the m of the formal p ro tes t of the deve lo p m ent a nd th at ou r nei g hbor hood ha d c oncer ns that w hen more water was added to th e street s in our area we would have problem s.” T he instan t suit involv es mo re t han t he physical d am ages to the Pope s’ residence cause d by the f lood w ate rs. T o ano the r interrogatoryasking abou t the ir cl aim ed d am ages, the P opes respon ded t hat d amag es to be co nsi dered by the jur y i ncl uded di minut ion i n the ma rket v alue of

the ho use a nd “f utu re dam ages if f lood ing should occu r again.”The Pope s als o re fer to the cour t’ s si mil ar sta tement that if a nui sanc e occ urs “ at 5 least a few time s a y ear,” j u ro rs should b e ab le to evaluate its impactw ith reaso nab le cer tai nty , ag ain l eadi ng to the c oncl usi on th e nui sanc e i s p er manent. Id . at280. Cf. Plo ugh v. R eynolds , N o. 13 -0 3- 741- CV , 200 6 W L 32812 0 ( Tex .App. –Co rp us 6 Ch ris ti , Fe b
. 9 , 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t. ) (m e m . o p .) (ap p lyin g S ch n e ide r Na t ’l , and f inding nuisa nce tem pora ry

w hen cause d by acts of v and alism and other w illfu l and occasio nal acts w hose future occ ur re nce w as uncer tai n)
. 8 The Popes poi nt t o the co urt’ s s tatementi n Schn eider Nati onal thatthe occu rrence o f a n u isa n ce “se vera l ti m e s in t h e ye a rs le a d in g u p t o a t ria l” is li ke ly to give ju ro rs e n o u gh evidence of the nuisa nce’s frequen cy and dura tion to evaluate its imp act on prope rty v alue s, lea din g to the c oncl usi on th e nui sanc e s houl d be treated as per manent. Schn eide r Nat’ l, 5 147 S. W .3d a t 280 . They arg ue th e oc cur re nce of f loo din g onl y tw ic e, in 2 0 0 1 and 2003, from a s ubdi v is ion co mplet ed i n 1997, does not meet t hat s tandard. W e d is a gre e . T h e re c o rd d e m o n s t ra t e s t h a tt h e n u is a n c e fo r wh ic h t h e P o p e s h a ve sued is a re cur re nt one. The source they bl ame for t hei r inj ur ies , t he Br iarcrestsu bdi v is ion , is per manent. Ad d ress ing the q uest ion w hether ch aract er iz ati on of a nui sanc e as 6 p e rm a n e n to r t e m p o ra ry sh o u ld fo c u s o n t h e d e fe n d a n t ’s o p e ra t io n s o r t h e p la in t if f’s in ju ry, the c our t hel d tha t “ a per manent n uis ance maybe e sta bli shed by sh ow ing thatei ther

the plaint if f ’s injuries or the defend ant ’s operat ions are p erma nen t.” Id
. at 283. T hatrecurrence of the i nj ur

y i s d ep en de nto n a s uffi c i en tl y h ea vy rai n do es n otma k e th e nuisa nce temporar

y . Id . at283; City of Am arillo v. W are , 120 Te x . 456 , 40 S. W .2d 57, 61 -62 (193 1). Nor are the two flood inj ur ies document ed in the summar y jud g ment re cord “s o ir re g ula r or interm itten t” that “f utu re injury cann ot be estim ate d w ith reaso nab le certaint y .” Schn eider Na t ’l , 147 S.W .3d a t 281
. W e find the P opes all eg e a per manent nui sanc e caus ed by the9

Br iarcrestsu bdi v is ion , and thatfacts ex is ted o n the oc cur re nce of the 2001 floodi ng that author iz ed them to s eek jud ic ial reli ef ag ain st Ki ell a for the n uis ance they as ser t. The nuisa nce ca use o f

action then accrued , and b ecam e barred b y lim itation s two y ears late r. The c ou rt di d no t er r

b y g ran ti ng s um ma r

y j ud g me nto n th e Po pe s ’ n ui s an c e c l ai m. T he p arties agree tha t the timeline ss of f iling of the Po pes’ t re s p a s s c laim also depends on w hether

they as ser t per manent or temporar y damage to their

proper ty
. See, e.g., W addy v. Cit

y of Houst

on , 834 S.W .2d 97, 10 2 (Te x .Ap p.– Housto n [1 Dist. 1992 , w rit st den ied) (action for t respa ss byperm ane nt da ma ge to land a ccrued , for limitatio ns pu rpose s, on di sc ov er

y of firs t acti onabl e i nju ry ). See alsoTex . C iv . Prac. & Rem . C ode An n. § 16.003 (V er non 200 5)
. Our dete rmi nati on th at t he Pop es’ nui sanc e c lai m in v olv ed perm ane nt da ma ge t o t heir prop erty, requires the sa me conclusio n w ith respe ct to the ir trespas s c lai m. W e find ital so acc ru ed on the o cc ur re nce of the 2001 flooding , and was prop erly subjectto Kiella’s af

f irmative defense of

limitation s. As noted, c o u rt s a ls o hav e appl ied a two- y ear st atute of li mita ti ons to c lai ms for damag es under § 11.086 of t he Tex as W ater C ode. Gr

aham , 212 S.W .3d a t 512 ; Anders , 817 S.W .2d a t9 5
. N o c o n t e n t i o n i s m a d e t h a tt h e c l a i m fo r d a ma g e s u n d e r

t h a tst atute asserte d in this case accru e d a ta ny later da te th an th e nu isance or trespass claim s. Accordin gly , w e f ind the trial court did not err by grant ing summ aryjudgmen t as to th at claim as w ell. W e ov er ru le the P opes’ fourt h i ss ue. Beca use w e find Ki ell a c oncl u s i ve l y e s t abl is hed enti tl ement t o j udg ment bas ed on t h e a f firmat iv e defense of li mita ti ons, w e need not10

address the Popes ’ other i ss ues. Tex . R . Ap p. P. 47.1. Acc ordin g ly , we aff ir m the tr ial cour t’ s t ake- nothi ng j udg ment.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice