### NUM BER 13-08- 002- CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
HOW A RD R OSS, A LT ON ROS S, A pp ellan ts, A ND GW END OLY N ROS S,
v . WA LT ER WOM A CK , A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 3 77t h Dist rict C ou rt of Vict oria Co un ty , T exas 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la This i s a n appea l from the trial cour t’ s o rd er g ra nti ng a no -e v ide nce moti on for
summar y j udg ment in f av or

of appel lee , W alt er

W omack , and deny ing a t ra dit ion al
s u m m a ry j u d gm e n tm o t io n f il e d b y a p p e ll a n t s , Ho wa rd Ro s s , A lt o n Ro s s a n d G we n d o lynI n i t s r epl y br i ef , t he R oss f am i l y aband ons i t s ei ght h i ssue wher ei n t hey cl ai m ed t hat an easem ent 1 w a s p a rt o f th e o rig i n a l l a n d p a te n t i s s u e d b y th e S ta te o f T e x a s . 2 Ros s ( the “R oss f amil y ”)

. W omack so ug ht a decl ar ator

y j udg ment t hat t he R oss famil y had no right to cross his la nd in orde r to a ccess the ir prop erty. By ten issues, the Ross fa mily urges that t h e r o a d i n q uest ion w as imp liedly ded icated to pub lic use before W om ack acq uired th e proper

ty ; t hat t hey

hav e an easementby

ac q uie sc ence and es toppel ; and that the o ri g ina l lan d pat ents i mplie d ly g ra nted an eas ement ac ro ss proper ty now ow ned by W om ack. The Ross fa mily seeks ren dition in their favor or rema nd o f the case for trial. 1 W om ack argues tha t no f act issues have bee n raised on the e asem ent b y e stop pel claim
or the impl ied publi c dedic ati on clai m; that there w as no i mpli ed s tate g ra nt as a mat ter of law ; tha t the “law

of the case ” doctrine pre clude s litigation o f se v eral of

t he Ross f am ily ’s cl aims ; and that the tr ial co urt had the dis creti on to g ra nt at tor ney ’s fees. W e rev erse and
re mand. I. P R O C ED U R AL H I ST OR Y OF T H E C ASE This ca se is aboutW omack ’s dec is ion to cutoff the Ros s famil y ’s so le means of access to their prope rty . W om ack owns all of the pro perty surroundin g the Ross fa mily proper ty , i ncl udi ng the ro ad th at prov ide s t he onl y means to a cc e ss t h e ir lan d. The
ev ide nce w as undi sput ed th at t he R oss fa mil y and thei r ances tors h ad al w ay s u sed the
ro ad to r each thei r proper ty

. This ca se w as pre v iou sl y appeal ed to thi s C our

t. Ross v. W

om ack , N o. 13 -0 4- 571- CV , 200 6 W L 36280 42 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti , D ec. 14, 2006, no pet .) ( mem. op.) (“ Ros s I ” ). I n Ross I , thi s Cou rt re v ersed and remanded t he s ummary j udg ment g ra nted in fa vor o f

W omack

bec ause the R oss famil y broug ht for

w ard mor e tha n a s ci nti ll a of3

prob ative ev iden ce raising a g enu ine issue of ma terial fact w ith respe ct to the Ross fa mily’ s easement by

es toppel cl aim. Id. a t *6. Additio nally, this Court dete rmine d tha t the Ross fam ily ’s sum ma ry judgme nt ev iden ce w ith respe ct to their ease me nt by nece ssit y cla im
w as ins uff ic ien t to rai se a f acti ss ue. Id. at *7. Th is Court did not rule on an y othe r claim
ra is e d b y t h e Ro s s fa m il y. Af ter the case w as rem and ed, the Ross fam ily ame nde d the ir plea dings to asse rt a claim o f

implied ded ication , imp lied state grant , and a claim against W om ack for trespa ss or interf eren ce w ith the Ross fa mily’ s rig ht to use the road to reach the ir prop erty. W om ack filed a no -e v ide nce moti on for summar y jud g ment, cl aimi ng thatthere w as no ev ide nce that eit her the Ros s famil y

or thei r ances tors b eli eved o r act ed upon r epr esent ati ons by W omack and his anc est ors t hat they had a ri g ht to use the road. W omack ’s moti on on the
ease me nt by estopp el c la im w as granted byinterlocut orysumm aryjudgmen t. W om ack then filed a s econd no- ev ide nce moti on on the R oss famil y ’s r emaini ng cl aims

. T he Ross f am ily

respon ded and also f iled a m otion for t ra d it iona l summ ary jud g ment, urgin g t h a t th ey had est abl is hed as a mat ter of law thei r cl aims of impl ied dedi cat ion of

the ro ad, easementbyacq uie sc ence and es toppel and easementby i mpli ed state g rant. The f inal sum m a ry ju d gmen t, con tainin g a recital tha t the judgmen t is fina l, sta tes that“ [d]efendant s d o n o t hav e any eas ement up on Pl ain ti ff ’s proper ty made t he subje ct of

the suit. ” T he trial cou rt g rante d f inal sum ma ry judgmen t in favor of W om ack and against the Ross f am ily o n all cla ims and d enie d the Ro ss f am ily ’s motio n for sum ma ry jud g ment. II. F AC T U AL B A CK GRO UND In 18 79, t he R oss famil y anc est ors, Fred R y dol ph and Nas h H ar v ey , purchas ed 2004

ac r es of l an d i n Vi c to r i a c ou nt y t ha t w as k no w n as t he R y do l ph R an c h. At ab ou t th e s am e time , Jam es McFadd in, W om ack’s g re a t -g rand fath er, began purcha sing l and in Victoria Cou nty

. Ev entual ly , t he M cF addi n proper ty , k now n as the Mc Fadd in Ran ch, e n c o mpass ed
more than 3 4 ,7 00 ac re s a nd, b y 1882, co mplet ely

su rrounded the 2 00- acre R y dol ph Ran ch. Alto n and How ard Ross ow n porti ons of the prop erty w it hin the Ry dol ph R anch. Their mother , G w endol y n R oss , i nher it ed 34. 449 ac re s o f proper ty kn ow n as the Scot t proper ty and 3.2 a cres of the R y dol ph R anch. Throug h i nher it ance and by purch ase, the Ros s famil y

now ow ns approx imat ely

ei g hty ac re s l ocat ed w it hin the Ry dol ph Ranc h and the S cot t prope rt y. W omack , as a M cF addi n hei r, ca me to ow n al l of the proper ty
sur ro undi ng the Ros s famil y ’s proper ty w hen ther e w as a parti ti on of the Mc Fadd in proper ty in 1990. W omack

ag re ed i n hi s d eposi ti on th at t he R oss famil y had a lw ay s u sed the
ro ad—un t i l n o w . H e s t a t e d t h a tm a n a g e me n to f t h e w i l d l i fe , p a s t u r e s a n d a g r i c u l t u r al
o p e ra t io n s we re ch a n gi n g a n d h e f e lt h e wa n t e d t o h a ve b e t t e r c o n t ro l o ve r h is p ro p e rt y. W om ack agreed th at w ithou t his per m is sion, th e on ly w ay for the Ross f am ily to access the ir property w as by air

. In Aug ust1992, pr ior

to W omack ’s dec is ion to blo ck the Ros s famil y ’s ac ces s t o the ir property, W om ack en tered into a hu nting lease w ith How ard and Alton . Th erea f ter, W omack i nst all ed a loc ked g ate a t t he entra nce of the road

. At firs t, he gav e k ey s t o the Ros s famil y , as w ell as oi lfiel d w or kers w ho ut il iz ed th e proper ty

. In the s ummer of 2002, W omack ca ncel led the hunti ng l ease and offered t o buy the Ros s family ’s proper ty

. The Ross fam ily

w ould not sell. Sub sequen tly , the Ross fa mily received a lette r f rom W om ack’s atto rney term inatin g the ir rig ht to cross W om ack’s prop erty to acce ss their land . W om ack the n f iled this lawsuit to dete rmine if th e Ross fam ily had ease me nt rights to obta in ingress5

a n d e gr e s s t o t h e ir

p ro p e rt y. III

. S TAND ARD OF R EVI EW W e re v iew

the tr ial co urt' s s ummary j udg ment de nov o. Prov ide nt Life and Accide nt Ins . Co. v. Knott

, 128 S.W .3d 211, 215 (Tex

. 2003)

. The sta ndards of rev iew for tradi ti onal and no-evidence summ aryjudgmen t s a re we ll establishe d. In a trad itiona l summ ary jud g ment, the mov ant has the burden to est abl is h that there are no mater ial i ss ues of fact

. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 166a( c) ; Rhon e-Pou lenc, In c. v. Stee l, 997 S.W .2d 217 , 222 (Tex. 1999 ); Me rcier v. Sw. B ell

Y ell ow Pages, Inc. , 214 S.W .3d 7 70, 7 73 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 200 7, no pet. ). Ev iden ce f a vo ra b le t o the non -movant wi ll be taken as true, every
re asona ble i nferenc e w il l be i ndul g ed i n the non- movant 's fav or , and doubt s mus t be
re sol v ed i n the non- mov ant' s fav or . Knott , 128 S.W .3d a t 215

. In c ontrast , a no- ev ide nce summar y j udg ment i s t he s ame as a pretr ial di re cte d
v erdic t, and w e appl y the same l eg al suffici ency st andard on re v iew

. Mack Trucks, Inc. v. T a m e z, 206 S.W .3d 572, 581–82 (Tex . 200 6) ; Orteg a v. City Nat'l Bank, 97 S .W .3d 7 65, 772 ( T e x. A p p.– Corpus Christi 200 3, no pet. ) ( op. on reh'g). W e revi ew the ev iden ce in the li g ht most fav or abl e to the n on- mov ant. City of Kel ler v. W il son, 168 S.W .3d 8 02, 8 25 (Tex . 200 5) . The non- mov ant must p ro duce ev ide nce to rais e a g enui ne i ss ue of mater ial fact in order to de feat a no- ev ide nce moti on for summar y j udg ment. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 16 6a(i). To deter mine w hether

the non- mov ant h as met i ts burden, w e rev iew the ev ide nce in the lig h t most favorable to th e no n-mo v ant , crediting such evidence thatreason able jurors coul d c re ditand dis re g ardin g co ntrar y ev ide nce unl ess r eason abl e j urors c oul d not

. T a m e z, 206 S.W .3d a t 582

.6 IV. A N A LY S IS 1. Law of

the Case W om ack argues as a prelu de to his summ aryjudgmen t a rg u m e n ts tha t the Ross family i s p ro hib it ed, b y

the law of the c ase doct ri ne, from r e- li ti g ati n g t h e i ss ues of
ease me nt by implied de dicatio n, prescription, or nece ssity . Law of the case app lies only t o p r i o r d e t e r mi n a t i o n s o f i s s u e s o f law

. Turbof f v. Gertne r, Aron & Le det Invs ., 840 S.W .2d 603 , 608 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 199 2, w rit dism’d). Th e law of the case d o c t ri n e has be en d ef ined bythe T exas Suprem e Court as “tha t principle un der w hich q uest ion s o f law

dec ide d on appeal to a c our t of l astr esor

t w il l g ov er n the case t hroug hout its s u b sequen t stages.” Hud son v. W

akef ield, 711 S.W .2d 6 28, 6 30 ( Tex . 198 6)

. By
nar ro w ing the is sues i n s ucc ess iv e s tage s o f t h e l it ig ati on, t he l aw

of the c ase doct ri ne a t t e m p t s t o a c h ie ve u n if o rm it y o f d e c is io n a s w e l l a s ju d ic ia l e c o n o m y a n d e f f ic ie n c y. Pitm an v . Li ghtfo ot, 937 S.W .2d 496 , 513 (Te x . App .–S an Anton io 199 6, w rit d e n ie d); Dessomm es v. Dessomm es, 543 S.W .2d 165 , 169 (Tex. Civ. App .–T exarkana 197 6, w rit
re f'd n.r .e.)

. The doct ri ne i s b a sed on publ icpol ic y and is ai med at putti ng an e nd to li ti g ati on. Pitm an, 937 S.W .2d at 513

. Th e do ctrine ha s no ap plication , howev er, w here a par ty amends hi s p lea din g s a nd adds a ne w ca use of acti on followin g r ev ersal and
re mand from t he first proceed ing

. See B er ry m an v . El Pas o Natur

al Gas C o., 838 S.W .2d 610, 614 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti , 199 2) , rev'd on ot her gr ounds , 8 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 3 6 2 (T e x. 1993) ; Kropp v. Prathe r, 5 26 S.W .2d 2 83, 2 86 (T ex. C iv . App .–T y ler 1975 , w rit ref 'd n.r.e .). If the first appeal i s from the g ra nti ng of a summar y jud g ment moti on, t he doc tr ine w il l not appl y i f the part ies or causes of acti on are di ff er ent u nder the subs eq uent proceed ing , or7

if the sum ma ry

judgmen t evi den ce of fered in suppo rt o f

t he se cond mot ion m ate rially differs from thatoff er ed i n s u p p o rt of the firs t moti on. See H udson ,711 S.W .2d a t 631 ; Kr opp, 526 S.W .2d a t 286

. In Ross I , t his C our

t rev ersed and rem a n ded on the e asementby es toppel i ss ue. T h e Co u rta l s o h e ld t h a tt h e re wa s n o e vid e n c e o n t h e cl a im o f e a s e m e n tb y n e c e s s it y. On remand, t he R oss famil y added new

ca uses o f

a ct ion , par

ti cul ar ly a c lai m of impl ied dedi cat ion

. The cl aim is not bar re d by the law of the c ase doct ri ne. T h e o nly cl aim that is bar re d i s the easement by neces si ty cl aim as that w as the onl y cl aim that w as deal t w it h in Ros s I

. This C our

t, in Ross I , did not attempt to li mit the remand to onl y easement by esto ppe l. The Ross f am ily ’s n ewl y p lead ed claim of

im plied ded ication is a dif feren t cause of act ion f ro m eit her

presc ri pti v e eas ement or eas ement by

nec ess it y . See Reed v. W ri ght , 155 S. W .3d 6 66, 672 (Tex . App.–Tex ar kana 2005, pet. deni ed) ( set ti ng forth el ements of impl ied publ icdedi cat ion ); Br ooks v. Jo nes , 578 S.W .2d 6 69, 6 73 ( Tex . 197 9) ( set ti ng forth ele ments of a pr esc ri pti v e eas ement) ; D uf f v . Matth ews , 311 S.W .2d 637, 641 (Tex . 195 8) (se tt in g fo rt h e le m e n ts o f ea se m e n t b y ne ce ss it y). T h e Ro ss fa m ily’s am e n d e d pl e a d in gs ar e di ff er ent, w ere notr ule d on in our pri or opini on, and do not cons ti tute la w of the c ase. 2. Ease ment by

Es toppel By thei r firs t, fifth, si xth an d se ven th is sues , t he R oss famil y arg ues that they acq uired an easementby es toppel

. In order

to create an eas ement by es toppel , t he follo w ing el ements mustex is t: ( 1) a repr esent ati on w as communi cat ed, e it her by w ord or by ac ti on, t o the promis ee; (2 ) th e c ommunic ati on w as bel iev ed; a nd ( 3) the promis ee re li ed on the c ommunic ati on. Storm s v. Tuck , 579 S.W .2d 447, 452 ( Tex . 197 9) ; see Ross8

v. W om ack, 2006 W L 3628042 at * 6. Appl ic ati on of an ea sementby es toppel depend s o n the u niq ue facts of each cas e. W ilson v. McGuffin , 7 4 9 S

. W

. 2 d 6 0 6 , 6 1 0 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1988, w ri t den ied ); Ros s v . Wom ack

, 2006 W L 36280 42 at*6. In W om ack’s no-evidence mot ion for sum ma ry judgmen t, he urges that the Ross fam ily produ ced n o evidence of the ele me nts of

b elief a nd reliance

. I n respo nse, t he Ross family i ntroduce d ev ide nce that they cl aim est abl is hes both a bel ief tha t t hey had a r ig ht to us e the road and thatthey r eli ed upon that

bel ief. The r ele v ant c ase law

su g g est s t he q uantum o f proof r eq uired to est abl is h the bel ief and reliance ele me nts. For ex am ple, in Holden v . Weidenf

eller , t he San Ant oni o C our

t of Appeal s a ff ir med an e asementby es toppel cl aim based on facts si mil ar to the o nes her e. Hold e n v. Weidenfel

ler , 929 S.W .2d 124 , 131 -32 (Te x . App .–S an An ton io 199 6, w rit deni ed)

. In Holden , the la ndlo cked owners use d the roa d at issue con tinuo usly for ingress and eg re ss for t hir

ty -fiv e y ears b efore t he oppo si ng l andow ners a ttempt ed to loc k them out

. Id. at 131

. B a s e d up on p rev ious use of the roa d, th e land locked ow ners bo ught the ir proper ty w it h the understa ndi ng thatthe ro ad gav e the m acc ess to the p ro per ty ; t he lan dow ners made no o bje cti o n t o t h e u se of the road for ov er se v en y ears a fter t hey purch ased the pro perty, and th e land owners allow ed th e lan d lo cked o w ners to p ut th eir
ow n l ock on t he g ate t o g ain ac ces s. Id. at 13 1- 32. The Holden c o u rt s tated thatthe
ev ide nce show ed that t he l andl ock ed ow ners a nd th eir predece ss ors b uil t a house on t he proper ty and had s pent si g nific ant am o unts of money i mprov ing the proper

ty ov er the y ears. Id. at 132

. T he court foun d tha t the re w as evidence f rom which the trial court cou ld hav e infer re d that the ow ners of t he ro ad led the W eid enfell er ’s to bel iev e tha t t hey had9

a ri g ht to use the ro ad and that the bel ief w as re li ed upon

. Id

. Not abl y , t he c our t poi nts out tha t ease me nt by esto ppe l is obviously an equitab le doct rine and is not a pplied a s strictly
as an i mpli ed eas ement

. Id. at 13 1. Lik ew is e, i n W

allace v. McKinz

ie , the landl ock ed ow ners used the road at i ss ue for ing re ss and eg re ss for o v er se v enty y ears b efore they w er e deni ed acc ess , and for sev enty y ears, there had been no oppos it ion to the la n d loc ked ow ners’ us e of the ro ad. 869 S.W .2d 592, 596 (Tex . App.–Amar il lo 1993, w ri t den ied ); see cont ra Al len v. Al len , No. 07- 06- 0150- CV , 200 8 W L 3890120 at *14 (Tex

. App.–A mari ll o Aug

. 21, 2008, no pet . h. ). The McKinz ie co urt hel d tha t t hroug h the ir per mis si v e and acq uie sc in g behav ior , t he lan dow ners had eng ag ed in re pr esent ati ons by thei r condu ct. Id . at 596. The cour t found that ev ide nce, by

i tse lf, w as leg all y

suff ic ien t ev ide nce to s uppor t t he j ur y ’s findi ng thatthe lan dow ners repr esent ed th at c ertai n r ig hts ex is ted to use th e W all ace’ s p ro per ty

. The
cour t al so found that same conduc t suppor ted the jur

y ’s determi nati on th at t he l andl ock ed
ow ners reli ed on the repr esent ati on. Id

. Al so, i n Exxon C or

p. v . Schutz m aie r , t he c our t found an eas ement by es toppel w as created w her e the onl y means of ing re ss and eg re ss w as by the ro ad ati ss ue and the
acc ess w as used for tw enty -tw o y ears w it hout int er ferenc e from t he defendant. Exxon Cor p. v . Schutz m aie r , 537 S.W .2d 282 , 285 (Tex. Civ . App

. – B e a u m o n t 197 6, no w rit). Add itiona lly , t h e l a n d locked ow ners ha d expend ed m one y on the ir property to m ake improv ements in rel ian ce upon an ex pr ess easement obtai ned by thei r pr edece ss ors. The Exxon cour

t al so noted that the d oct ri ne of eas em ent b y es toppel has not been ap pli ed
w it h the sa me st ri ctn ess as eas ements by i mpli cat ion

. Id . at285.10

Here, ev ide nce w as submi tted as summa ry ju d gm ent p ro of that i s a t l eastas com pelling as tha t set forth in Holden, Wall ace and Schu tz

m aie r. Fo r instance , the Ross family and thei r ances tors u sed the road for ov er se v entyy ears w it hout int er ferenc e, owners of

the Rydo lp h p rope rty

bou ght the Sco tt prop erty knowing tha t the McFaddin prop erty w as the only w ay to acce ss it. W o m a ck did not objectto the Ross fa mily’ s use of t he proper

ty for more than tw elv e y ears after he inh er it ed it and it w a s p a rt it ion ed. W omack g av e the R oss f a m ily a key for a pprox imat ely

ten y ears a fter h e ac q uired th e proper ty and the R y dol ph and Ros s fam ili es eit her bui lthomes or

made i mprov ements
w it hout obj ect ion

. Pr ev iou sl y , W o m ack ’s predece ss ors- in- ti tl e repr esent ed th ro ug h ac ti on th at t he Ros s famil y

predece ss ors had a r ig ht t o us e the road bec ause they had alw ay s u sed it

. The R os s fami l y i nt rod uc ed s um ma r y j ud g me nt ev i de nc e th at th ey ha d r ep ai r ed a h om e on th eir property

for t he pur pose of hav ing a pl ace to hu nt an d tha t t hey mai ntai ned a family ce meter y . They int ro duced the K uy C re ek easement , ent er ed i nto i n 1916 by J. A. Mc Fadd in, F red and Ros a R y dol ph, a nd N ash Har v ey . The la ng uag e of the easement suggests tha t McFaddin w as going to build a bridge and the Ry dolp hs and Harv ey could
use the road and brid g e w hen it w as bui lt

. It w oul d make no s ense that the R y dol phs and Har v ey w oul d hav e g ra nted Mc Fadd in an easement in ex chang e for th e r ig ht t o us e a road and a br idg e tha t t hey

co uld not other

w is e ac ces s i f they

di d nothav e the r ig ht to use the
ro ad th at w oul d al low

them to reach that loc ati on. Iva W ood s, the great grand dau ghter o f Na sh Harv ey an d grand dau ghter o f Mamie Harv ey, testif ied that the Nash Harvey fam ily built a re s id e n c e o n t h e p ro p e rt y. Gwe n d o lyn Ro s s t e s t if ie d b y a f

f id a vitsu b m it t e d a s su m m a ry j u d gm e n t e vid e n c e : “M y fa m il y a lwa ys11

bel iev ed w e had a r ig ht t o us e the M cF addi n R oad t o g et t o our prope rt y , and w e reli ed on that ri g ht ev er

y ti me w e us ed th e road .

. . . ” Alton and How ard testi fied simi lar ly

. T h e e vid e n ce sho w ed th at th e Ross fam ily had repaired a hom e after W om ack acquired the prope rty . W om ack gav e the m keys af ter he inst alled a lock on the gate. All of the act ions by the Ross fam il y and their ance stors, the McFaddin f am ily and their
ances tors, and ev en W omack hi msel f, show s a bel ief tha t the Ros s family had a r ig ht t o acc ess thei r proper

ty by the ro ad. There w as als o c ontrov er ti ng ev ide nce from C lau de McCan, a seventy-six -y ear-old relat iv e of W om ack w ho wo rk e d o n the McFaddin pro p e rt ies, w ho te sti fied th at he kn ew of no w ri tten ag re ement be tw een t he tw o famil ies
re g ardin g the use of the roads. Acco rd ing to Mc Can : “They justw ent and w e di dn’ t s top the m. ” W hil e W omack

arg ues that there w as no f actiss ue rais ed on the “ bel ief” el ement of the es toppel cl aim, i t i s cl ear the is sue w as ra is ed from both the ev ide nce attac hed as
sum ma ry

judgmen t proof

and the case law , w hich reco gn ize s thatreliance ne cessarily inc lud es bel ief. See S ands v. Lemm erhirt , 262 S.W . 125 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–D all as 1924, no
w rit) (stating that reliance up on rep resen tatio ns nece ssarily imp lies a belief in the ir tr uth ). In McKinz

ie , the court he ld tha t throu gh permissive and acquiescin g beh avior, the ow ners of the s er

v ien t estat e engag ed in represent ati ons by thei r condu ct. Mc Ki

nz ie, 869 S.W .2d at 59 6. The cour

t furt her opi ned: “Thi s s ame co nduct -e v ide nce and reason abl e i nferenc es therefrom al so suppo rtthe jur y ’s dete rmi nati on th at t he M cKi nz ies r elie d on the represe nta tion. ” Id. T he Ross f am ily

has raised a fact issue w ith respe ct to the elem ent s of their easementby

es toppel cl aim. Be caus e the ir righ t to such a n eas ement ha s n ot be en12

est abl is hed as a mat ter of law , how ev er , w e must agai n remand this case to th e tr ial co urt. Iss ue number

si x i s s ust ain ed. 3. Impl ied Publ icD edi cat ion By i ss ues tw o, t hr ee, and four, the Ros s family urg es that ites tabl is hed as a mat ter
o f la w th a tt h e ro a d wa y in qu e s t io n wa s im p li e d ly d e d ic a t e d t o p u b li cu s e , o r a lt e rn a t ive ly, that they present ed more tha n a s ci nti ll a of ev ide nce that the ori g in of the road w as shrouded i n obs cur it y , t hat there is no ev ide nce of c ontrar y int enti on of t he l andow ner at the t ime the road w as created, and that there has been lon g and cont inu ous publ icus e of the road. Implie d d e d ic ati on req uires a c lea r and une q uiv ocal i ntent ion on t he par t of the lan dow ner

to appropr iat e the la nd for publ icus e. G utier re z v. C ounty

of Zapa ta , 951 S.W .2d 831 , 838 (Te x . App .–S an An ton io 199 7, no w rit). Four elem ent s must g ene rally be prov en: (1 ) the l andow ner ’s ac ti ons all ow the b eli ef that h e or sh e i ntended to dedi cat e the road to pub lic use; (2) he or she w as com pet ent to ded icat e t h e roa d; (3) the p ublic
re li ed on the ow ner ’s ac ts and w il l benefit from the dedi cat ion ; and ( 4) the off er of dedi cat ion w as acc epted. Id . at839. The Ro ss famil y

se eks to use a n e xce p ti on to g eneral ru le. W hen an all eg ed impl ied dedi cat ion oc cur re d s o far in the p ast that there is no av ail abl e proof o f the i ntent of the ow ner , ev ide nce of actual use, the purpos e of the use, permis si on for the use, the nat ure of the roa d itself

and main ten ance of

the roa d by the gov ernm ent or by neighbo rs can all be impor

tant factors for

our rev iew

. The lon g and cont inu ous use of a road by the publ icrais es a presumpt ion of donati v e i ntent

. Bett s v . R eed , 1 6 5 S

. W

. 3 d 8 6 2 , 8 6 8 (T e x. App.–Tex ar kana 2005, no pet .)

. F or thi s p re sumpti on to appl y , t he ow nershi p of the lan d13

w hen t he road or ig ina ted must be shrou ded in obsc ur it y so that no ev ide nce of inte nt by the ow ner

is av ail abl e. Id

. Ded ic ati on is pr esumed w hen the publ ic eng ag ed i n l ong and
c o n t in u o u s u s e o f

t h e ro a d wh o s e o ri g i n i s s h r o u d e d in o b s c u ri t y. R eed v . Wri ght , 155 S.W .3d 666, 671- 72 (Tex

. App.–Tex ar kana 2005, pet. deni ed)

. In W ri ght , the c our

t found tha t the orig in of

Cherry L ane was sh roud ed in ob scuritybeca use th ere w as no ev iden ce of the i denti ty

and no direct ev ide nce of t he int ent of t he ow ner w ho or ig ina ll y es tabl is hed the road. Id . at672. T he Ross f am ily

urges i n its sum ma ry

judgmen t mo tion tha t the o rig in of McFaddin Roa d i s s hrouded i n obs cur it y . They cor re ctl y ass ert that v ar iou s ind iv idu als us ed th e road for a lon g per iod of ti me before W omack erect ed a g ate t o p re ven t th e m from us ing the road

. How ever, the y

have not est ablishe d tha t the road ha d a long and contin uou s pub lic
use. According to McCan’s depo sition, th e ranch w as ope n and there was “ a lot of traf f ic in and out of t her e.” Among thos e uti li z ing the ro ad w er e Ma mie Harvey, Jim R y dol ph, Sophroni a M arti n, W esl ey R y dol ph, s ome tena nt far mers , and others. Iv a W oods tes ti fied that as a c hil d s he us ed th e M cF addi n R oad t o v is ither g ra ndmother . There w er e no si g ns ind ic ati ng the ro ad w as pr iv ate o r cl osed. How ev er , t hese factors d o notappear to re lat e to an i ntent ion to dedi cat e the road
a s p u b l i c . I n o r d e r t o g a i n t h e b e n e fi t o f t h i s d o c t r i n e , t h e R o s s fa mi l y w a s r e q uir ed to prove that n o con trary

showi ng of

the owner’s inte ntion e x isted. T o be a ded icated pub lic
ro ad th e road al so had t o be open t o al l w ho w oul d hav e oc cas ion to use it

. Guti er re z , 951 S.W .2d a t 841

. The tes t for the appl ic ati on of the “s hrouded i n obs cur it y ” ru le comes i nto p lay w hen the o ri g ins of the p ubl icus e and the ow nershi p of t he lan d at the ti me itor ig ina ted c annot14

be show n or

are s hrouded i n obs cur it y . See F az z inov. Gui

do , 8 3 6 S

. W

. 2 d 2 7 1 , 2 7 4 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 199 2, w ri t den ied ). An ow ner ’s donat iv e i ntentmay not be i mpli ed from ev ide nce that show s o nly thatthe publ icus ed th e l and for a l ong ti me w it hout
o bjec ti on from t he l andow ner . Id. Ev en as s um i ng th at th e or i g i ns of th e road w ere shrouded i n obs cur it y , t her e w as no ev ide nce int ro duced to show that t h e “ p u b lic ” ev er used the road in q uest ion

. Us e of a roadw ay by l andow ners, family , fri ends, g uest s, and busi ness inv it ees is not ev ide nce est abl is hin g publ ic use. S e e L o n g I s la n d O w n e r ’s A s s ’n Inc . v . D avi dson , 965 S.W .2d 674 , 682 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 199 8, pe t. de nied ); Mc Mu llen v

. Ki ng , 584 S.W .2d 706 , 709 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 197 9, w rit ref ’d n.r.e. ). T h is ro a d wa s a d e a d e n d ro a d t h a te n d e d o n w h a t n o w is W o m a c k ’s p ro p e rt y. Beca use the R oss famil y has not int ro duced ev ide nce show ing the publ icnatu re of the
ro ad as r eq uired for thei r impl ied publ ic dedi cat ion cl aim; the tr ial cour t c or re ctl y

g ra nted
sum ma ry

judgmen t on th at ground . All of th e n a me d individuals using the roa d w ere land owners, fa mily, friend s, guests, and b usine ss in v itees. McCan testif ied tha t it w as a pr i v at e roa d. A c c ordi ng t o M c C an a nd e v en t he R os s fam i l y , w he n un i nv i te d pe op l e c am e on the road t h e y

w o u l d b e s t o p p e d a n d e s c o rt e d o ff t h e ro a d

. T h e s u mm a r y j u d g me nt
ev ide nce est abl is hed t hat th e road w as not p ubl ic

. The Ro ss famil y ’s se cond, thi rd and fourth is sues are ov er ru led

. 4. Attor ney ’s F ees B y t h e R o s s fa m i l y ’ s f i n a l p o i n t , t h e y c h a l l e n g e t h e a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y ’ s fe e s . W e have conclu ded tha t the trial court erred in grant ing sum ma ry judgmen t in W om ack’s favor. We c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s a w a r d o f a t t o r n e y ’ s fe e s w a s l i k e w i s e i n e r ro r . W e sus tai n the R oss famil y ’s tent h i ss ue.15 V. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s rev ersed and remanded for proce edi ng s c onsi ste nt
w it h thi s o pin ion

.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e

Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 6 th da y

of Nov ember , 200 8.