Jo hn T. B oy d, C hie f Justice (R et.) , Se v enth Cou rtof Appeal s, si tti ng by 1 ass ig nment. Tex . G ov ’tC ode An n. §7 5.002( a) (1 ) (V er non 200 5)
. NO. 07-07 -021 8-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 E FEB RU ARY20, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ KODY KOTHMANN, APP ELL ANT

v. GARYR OTHW ELL D /B/A R OTHW ELL H OM ES, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 99 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; TH NO. 200 1-51 2,7 14-A; HONORABLE J. BL AIR CHERRY , JR., PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd PI RTL E, JJ., an d BOYD, S.J. 1 OPIN ION Kody Kot hmann appe als a j udg ment dec lar ing under an i nst ru ment g ra nti ng the Ci ty of L ubb ock f iv e draina ge easem ent s, surface water f rom th e de v elop me nt of Gary RothwellW e address ed re lat ed cl aims in a prev iou s o pin ion
. Kot hm ann v. City of Lu bbo ck, 2 No. 07 - 04 - 05 32 - C V 20 06 W L 75 66 38 , 20 06 Te x . Ap p. L ex i s 2 29 6 ( Tex .A pp .– Am arillo Ma rc h 24, 2006, no p et.)( mem. op.)
. Th e instrum e n tc reate s the ea sem ent s at v arious loca tions a long the bo und ary 3 between t he tract s now ow ned by Kothmann and Rot hw ell , each easementextendi ng from the bou nda ry

two hu ndre d feetinto Ko thm ann ’s property. Kothm ann ’s 64-acre tract extends so me distan ce ea stw ard be y ond the en d of the ea sem ent s. 2 d/b/a R othwell H omes c an flow throug h the eas ements and onto the l and of Kot hmann. 2 F i nd i ng t he t r i al c ou rt c or rectl y c on s tr ue d th e g ran ti ng i ns tr um en t, w e affi r m. Backg ro und Rot hw ell ow ned und ev elo ped l and westof a 64 -a cre tractow ned by Ja ck ie Phi lpo tt, Kothmann’ s p re deces sor i n ti tl e. Rot hw ell des ired to dev elo p a subdi v is ion on his real ty and the City required he ob tain, in the C it y ’s nam e, drain age ease me nts on Philpot t’s proper ty before dev elo pment. In Janua ry 2000, Phil pott ex ecut ed an ins tr ument en ti tl ed “D ra ina g e Eas ement” g ra nti ng the Ci ty f iv e drai nag e easements , each measur ing fiftyfeet by two hundred feet. The i nst ru ment was reco rd e d in Lubbo ck C ounty on J anuar

y 24, 3 2000. Kot hmann s ubseq uentl y ac q uired th e proper

ty of Phi lpo tt. Ko th m a n n d o e s not dis pute that he ac q uired Phi lpo tt’ s p ro p e rt y burd ened w it h the eas ements
. The di sput e fo c u s e s o n t h e e xt e n to f t h e ri gh t s gra n t e d t h e Ci ty. At t he time Kothmann acq uired the proper ty , t he eas ements w ere notopened and a “fence -line berm ” separat ed h is land f rom th at of Rothwell. Af

ter the ease me nts w ere opened, Kot hmann fil ed s uital leg ing damag es from water flow ing from t he eas ements onto his lan d. He als o soug ht a decl arator y j udg ment t hat t he i nst ru ment di d notper mit the flo w3

of w ater off th e e a sements on to t he remaind er of his proper

ty
. Rot hw ell fil ed a count ercl aim for dec larator y re lie f seeki ng a de cl arati on th at water flow ing throug h the easement s c oul d c onti nue pas t t he boun dar ies of the e asement s. The C ity as ow ner

of the e asement s was joi ned t o the dec larator y j udg ment cl aims
. Al thoug h notbi furcat ed by order , t he decla ra to ry ju dg ment c lai ms were tr ied first, to the c our t. In the resul ti ng decl arator

y j udg ment, the t ri al cour t fo u n d the eas ements g ra nted by the ins tr ument all ow ed “ drain ag e of w ater onto [Ko thman n ’s] p ro per ty at the fiv e l ocat ion s d esc ri bed therein , and thatsu ch sur face water

i s a ll ow ed t o t h e n conti nue i ts flow beyond t he bou n d a ries of thos e fiv e l ocat ion s.” The c our t s ev ered th e dec larator y j udg ment acti on fr o m t h e r e mainde r of Kothmann’ s c lai ms, abated the remaini ng cl aims , and Kot hmann appeal s t he dec larator

y j udg ment. Di sc uss ion W e re vie w de nov

o a trial court’s interp retat ion of an unam biguous contract, as w ell as it s d eter minat ion w hether a c ontracti s a mbig uous. MCI Tel. Corp. v. Tex. Utils. Elec. Co. , 995 S. W .2d 6 47, 6 50- 651 ( Tex . 199 9) ( int er pretati on) ; Con ocoP hil li ps Co. v. Incli

ne Ener gy, Inc ., 189 S. W .3d 3 77, 3 80 ( Tex .App. –Eas tl and 200 6, pe t. deni ed) (ambig uity ). In condu cti ng a de nov

o re v iew , we exerci se our ow n judg ment and redeter mine each leg al is sue. Quick v. City of Austin , 7 S.W .3d 109 , 116 (Tex. 1999 ). In hi s first is sue, Kot hmann arg ues the c our t’ s d ecl arati on ex pands the li mita ti ons expressed in th e instrum ent . He conte nds th e trial court sho uld ha v e de c la red w ate rs4

d ra in e d in t o t h e f i v e e a s e m e n t s d e s c ri b e d in t h e in s t ru m e n ta re n o tp e rm it t e d t o m o ve bey ond t he define d bound ar ies of the e asement s. W e di sag re e. Pertine nt to our discussion , the instrum entprovi des: T HAT JACKIE PHIL POT T. . . ha[s ] b y t h ese p resen ts GRANT ED, BARGA IN E D, S OLD an d CONVEYED and b y these presen ts do[ es] GRAN T, B A R G A I N , S E L L a n d C O N V E Yu n t o t h e C I TY O F L U B B O C K , i ts leg al re p re se n ta ti v es, su cc ess ors a nd as si g ns, for t he us e of the publ icas a per petual and per manent drain ag e eas ement, the free and uni nter ru pted use, l ibe rty

of p a ss a ge in, on, alo ng , ov er , upo n, un der and across al l the prop erty ly ing and being situat ed in Lu bbo ck Count y , Te x as, an d be ing more par ti cul ar ly des cr ibe d as foll ows, to w it : [de scription of

f iv e tracts] *** SO L ON G AS the publ icco nti nues to us e s aid proper ty for t he pur poses herein st ated, sa id easementi ncl udes, but is not li mite d to, the free and unint errupte d use , liberty and priv ilege of passa ge in, along, over, across, un der, up on a nd a gainst the abo v e de scribed lan d for the p urpo se of cons tr uct ing , recons tr uct ing , maintai nin g , repai ri ng , c lea nin g and cl ear ing said prem ises for the f ree an d un obst ructed drainage of surface water; tog ether w it h the r ig ht of i ng re ss , eg re ss and re g re ss for s uch pur poses i n, on, a lon g , t hroug h and across al l the p ro per ty abov e des cr ibe d. It is hereb y

cov ena nte d an d ag re ed th at th e CIT Y OF LUBBOCK re tai ns and reser

v es the r ig ht t o set and determi ne th e drain ag e g ra de and direct ion of flow

of s ur face waters o n the real es tate abov e des cr ibe d, an d bui ldi ng s o r li ke per manent s tr uct ures shal l not b e erected, bui ltor c o n s t ru ct e d in , u p o n , o v e r , a n d a lo n g, o r a c ro s s t h e re a l e s t a t e a b o ve desc ri bed .
. . . An ea sem entis an interest in lan d an d carries w ith it so me right to use, or bene f it from, the l and for a s peci fied pur pose. Gol li nger v. Sta te, 8 3 4 S
. W
. 2 d 5 5 3 , 5 5 5 -5 6 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1992, no w ri t)
. Ease ment agreements are inter preted acc ordin g to t he r ule s o f contractconstr uct ion and int er pretati on. Bol and v . Natur al Gas Pi pel ineC o. o f A m . , 8 1 6 S .W .2d 843 , 844 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 19 91, no w rit). If the instru me nt isSee Her it age R esour

ces, Inc. v. Nati

onsB ank, 939 S. W .2d 1 18, 121 (Tex . 199 6) 4 ( citi ng Wester

n R eser ve L if e In s. Co . v

. Meadows, 152 Tex . 559 , 261 S.W .2d 5 54, 5 57 (Tex . 195 3) ). 5 unambi g uous, the cour t w il l g iv e ef

fect to the int enti on of the par ti es as ex press ed i n the w ri ti ng . In re McKi

nney, 167 S.W .3d 833 , 835 (Tex. 2005 ) ( per curiam ) ( citi ng Sun O il

C o. v. Ma deley, 626 S.W .2d 7 26, 731 ( Tex . 198 1) ). To ac hie v e thi s o bje cti v e, c our ts ex amine and c onsi der

the enti re w ri ti ng i n an effort t o har moniz e and g iv e effectto all i ts prov is ion s so none are rendered meani ng les s. Cok er v. C oker

, 650 S.W .2 d 3 9 1 , 393 (Tex. 1983 ). No si ng le prov is ion tak en al one w il l be g iv en c ontroll ing e f fect ; rather , al l the p ro v is ion s must be c onsi dered w it h referenc e to the w hol e i nst ru ment. Myers v. Gulf Coast Minerals Ma nagem ent C or

por ati on, 361 S.W .2d 193 , 196 (Tex.196 2). A proper co nst ru cti on of the ter ms of a g ra nt, cons ide re d i n the l ight of att endi ng ci rc umstan ces , det er mines the pur pose or

exte nt of the r ig ht of us e of an eas ement. Kear ney & Sonv. F

anche r, 401 S.W .2d 8 97, 9 05 ( Tex .C iv .App. –For t W orth 19 66, w ri t ref’d n. r. e.)
. Mi ndful of thes e s tandards as w ell as the r ule thati f a ter m in a c onv ey ance is not sp e cif ica lly de f in e d , t h a t t e rm is g iven it s pla in , ord in a ry, a n d gen e ra lly ac ce p te d m e a n in g, 4 w e tur n to the i nst ru ment. Acc ordin g to the i nst ru ment, the purp ose of the g ra nt f ro m Phi lpo tt to t he C ity was creati on of a “per petual and per manent d ra ina g e eas ement.” F or drain ag e, t he i nst ru ment g ra nts the Ci ty

“ li ber ty of pass ag e . . . ov er

. . . and a cro ss ” e a ch o f the easement s desc ri bed by

the ins tr ument. As us ed here, “ pass age” means “ to g o pas t or ac ro ss .” Me rr iam- W ebst er ’s C oll eg iat e D icti onar y 905 (1 1th e d. 20 03)
. The in str ument ex press es6

the p arti es’ i ntent ion thatwater d ra in freel y

w it hout re strain t ov er and across the easement s. Kothmann arg ues the l ang uag e of the ins tr ument permi ts the Ci ty and Rot hw ell to d ra in o n ly s o m u c h wa t e r a s wil l n a t u ra l l yd is s ip a t e wit h in t h e d im e n s io n s o f t h e f ive easement s. Butthi s readi ng re q uires w ri ng ing from the text of the ins tr ument a li mita ti on tha t the C it y m a y

do no more than impo und wate r w ithin ea ch ea sem ent . Th is int er pretati on c re ates so methi ng othe r than a drain ag e easement and i s n ot c onsi ste nt w it h other l ang uag e us ed i n the ins tr ument. For ex ample, the ins tr ument v est s i n the C ity the ri g ht t o “ s e ta n d d e t e r mi n e t h e d ra i n a g e g ra d e a n d d i re ct i o n o f f l o w o f s u r fa c e w aters.” Mo re ov er , t he i nst ru ment g ra nts the Cit y mai ntenanc e ac ces s t o the eas ements for t he “free and unobs tr uct e d d ra in ag e of sur face waters,” a pu rp ose cl ear ly at odds w it h Ko th m a n n ’s re a d in g. Kothmann further

arg ues the t ri al cour

t’ s r uli ng renders t he s tated bounda ri es of the ease me nts m ean ingless, contrary to stand ards of contractconstruct ion. W e again disagree. Unde r the instrum ent language, the C ity ’s ma inten ance access an d activities are li mite d to the d esc ri bed boundar ies , as are its rig ht to set and determi ne drai nag e g ra de and direction o f

wate r flow. F urthe r, the restricti o n s o n the erection of buildings or like str uct ures ex is t onl y

w it hin the boundaries o f the eas ements
. But, co nsi ste nt w it h the state d pu rpose and othe r terms of th e e a s em ent , w e can notagree the f low of wate r is limited in the w ay Kot hm ann sees it. Th e trial court did no t err in de c la ring tha t surface w ate r could f low

beyond th e bo und aries of the f iv e ea sem ent s. W e overrule Koth ma nn’s firs t i ss ue.7

The tr ial co urt al so decl ared the i nst ru ment free of ambig uity . In hi s s econd i ss ue, Kot hm ann challen ges this declarat ion, conte ndin g as an alterna tiv e prop osition thateach par ty ’s i nter pretati on of the ins tr ument i s l eg all y reason abl e, render ing the ins tr u m e nt ambig uous. A cont ract is amb iguous if af ter app ly ing establishe d rules o f c o n s t ru c tion it is s u s c e p t i b l e t o m o re t h a n o n e re a s o n a b l e meaning
. DeWitt C ounty Elec. C oop., Inc ., 1 S.W .3d 9 6, 10 0 ( Tex . 199 9)
. W it h respect to t he dec larati ons soug ht, w e find the instrum entis subject to only one reaso nab le interpre tatio n, th at expressed bythe trial court in it s j udg ment. The ins tr ument is not ambig uous. Kot hmann’ s s econd i ss ue i s o v er ru led
. Hav ing ov er ru led Kot hmann’ s two i ss ues on appeal, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice