### NUM BER 1 3-09 -003 15-CV



## C O U R T O F AP P E AL S

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 I S T I - 

## E D I N B U R G

THE S TA

TE O F TEX A S A ND THE TEXA S DEPA RTM ENT O F TRA NSPO RTA TION, A ppell ants,

v.

NICO- WF1, L.L. C., A ppell ee.

On a ppeal fr om the 107t h Di str ic t Cour t of Cam er on County , Texas.



## MEMORA NDU M OPI NION

Before Chi ef Justi ce Val dez and Just ic es Benavides, a nd Vel a

M emor andum O pini on by J usti ce Benavides

T his is an app eal f rom an orde r gr ant ing NICO-W F1, L.L .C.’s (“NICO” ) mo tion f or

sum ma ry judgme nt on its coun ter-suit f or decla ratory judgme nt and den y ing the mo tion f or

sum ma ry judgme nt f iled by the Sta te of T exas and the T exas Depa rtme nt of T ransp ortat ion
(collectiv ely, the “St ate ”).

T he und erly ing suit brou ght by the Sta te involv es NICO’s buildin g and concre teawning locate d on Arroy o Bou levard in t h e c it y of Los Fresnos, T exas, w hich the Sta te

argues encro ache s upo n its pub lic use rig ht-of -w ay. By f our issues, the Sta te argues tha t:
(1) w hen the street s we re ded icated to pub lic use, the re w as no inten tion to reserve the

out ermo st f if

tee n f eet of the street s f or prop erty owners to build upo n; (2) the buildin g and

atta ched concre te awning are locate d w it hi n th e pu bl ic rig ht-of -w ay and the ref ore const itute

an encro achm ent ; (3) the Sta te has the af f irmative dut y to remo v e an encro achm ent f rom

a rig ht-of -w ay ded icated to pub lic use; and (4) a priv ate party can n o t li m it or cont rol the

Sta te’s discretion over the use of street s ded icated to the pub lic. By a cross-issue, NICO

argues tha t in the event the trial court’s decla ratory judgme nt is not af f irmed

, the Sta te has

not esta blished each elem ent of its cause of action f or trespa ss as a ma tter of law

, and

the ref ore, is not en titled to su mm aryjudgm ent bu t on ly a re ma nd. W e a f

f irm.

I. B A C K G R O U N D
Except w here specif ica ll y not ed, the f ollowi ng f acts are und ispute d. NICO is the

owner of the buildin g and atta ched concre te awning and covered sidewalk locate d at 704

North Arroy o Bou levard, also known as FM 184 7, in Los Fresnos. T he buildin g is situat ed

on Lot s 28-3 4, Block 13 of the origi nal townsite of Los Fresnos. NICO’s buildin g and

atta ched structu res, includin g the concre te awning, sidewalk, and step s, currently extend

nine to ten f eet into the 100 f oot -w ide area designat ed as Arroy o Bou levard, but all of the

structu res rema in out side of the current curb lines of Arroy o Bou levard. T he buildin g w as

const ructed som e t im e during the 193 0s and retain s all of its origi nal chara cteristics,

includin g the awning- covered sidewalk. T he Sta te clai ms in its brief

, w ithou t citing any

supp ort in the record, tha t it has cont racted t o m a k e imp rov em ent s to Arroy o Bou levard
“[i]n orde r to imp rov e mo bility and enh ance saf ety” on the road

, and tha t the Sta te requires

the use of the add itiona l nine to ten f eet to com plete its prop osed imp rov em e n t s

. T he

2Arroy o Bou levard pu b li c road w ay is currently seventy f eet w ide f rom curb to

curb—stret ching thirty- f iv e f eet in each direction f rom the cent er stripe. In Octob er 200 8,

the Sta te f iled th e u nde rly ing suit alleging tr espa ss an d a sking f or an injun ction requiring

NICO to remo v e a po rtion o f its bu ilding and the en tire awning-cov ered sidewalk.

T he street s, bou levards, and alleys of Los Fresnos, includin g Arroy o Bou levard,

w ere d edica ted to pub lic use in the subdivisi on plat titled, “ Map of U nit A of

the T ownsite

of Fresnos, ” (“tow nsite ma p”) dat ed Janu ary 21, 192 8 and recorde d in v olum e 7, page 48

of the map records of

C am eron C oun ty, T exas. T he ded ication language in the townsite

ma p p rov ides:

I, A. H. Fernan dez, T rustee
, the owner of the la n d a s shown on the
accom pan y in g ma p, have cause d said land to be surv eyed, subd iv ided

, platt ed and nam ed a s shown by sa id ma p, and do now h ereb y ded icate to pub lic use, subje ct to the cond itions, restrictions and reservations here inaf ter
enu me rated , th e stre ets, bou levards and alleys as sho w n o n sa id m ap.

T he said A. H. Fernan dez, T rustee
, now here specif ies, tha t curb line shall be ten (10) f eet inside the line of all street s and bou levards abo v e me ntion ed, w ith ten (10) f eet radius curv atu re at all block corne rs, except on Arroy o Bou levard w here the curb lin e s h all be f if tee n (15) f eet inside the street line and on Alam o Stree t the curb line shall be seven and one -half (7 1/2 ) f eet inside the stree t line.

T he said A . H. Fe rnan dez, T rustee
, now h as the rig ht a nd now here
reserves and retain s the rig ht to occup y and use said street s, bou levards and alleys f or purp oses of const ructing, ma intain ing and ope rating ditche s, gutters, pipe -lines and culverts, a n d oth er app urten ance s f or draina ge purp oses, p ip e-lines and cond uits w ith nece ssary app urten ance s f or the distribut ion and sale of w ate r, gas o r o il f or railroads or oth er lines of transp ortat ion f or the carriage of f reight or passe ngers, f or lines of pole s and

w ires, or cond uits, f or the purp oses of t h e distribut ion and sale of lig ht or power, and f or telep hon e or telegraph purp oses. T he said A. H. Fernan dez, T ru stee
, now h ere reserves t he rig ht to excav ate and gr ade and oth erwis e imp ro ve a ll street s, bou levards and alleys and to tem pora rily interf ere w ith the use of

sam e while so d oing.

T he rig hts here in reserved ma y b e assigned in w hole or in part to oth er pe rsons, f irms or co rporatio ns, o r ma y be de dicate d to pu blic use

.

3T he dispu t e in t h is case arises out of the resulting bou nda ries of the pub lic use

d e d ic a tion of Arroy o Bou levard base d on this ded ication language. In the townsite m a p

itself

, text indicat ing the w idth of Arroy o Bou levard not es “100

, 50x50.” In certain portio ns

of the ma p, howev er, an add itiona l dot ted line indicat es w here f if tee n f eet is cut of

f on each

side of Arroy o Bou lavard. In ano the r part of the townsite ma p, a similar dot ted line app ears

w ith th e te x t, “curb line.”

T he Sta te f iled a pet ition f or injunct ion requesting tha t NICO be required to remo v e
part of its buildin g a nd atta ched concre te awning be ca u s e it is locate d w ithin the Sta te’s
rig ht-of -w ay. In respo nse, NICO f iled a coun ter suit f or decla ratory judgme nt s eekin g a

decla ration tha t its buildin g and awning did not encro ach on the Sta te’s rig ht-of -w ay. Each
party f iled m otion s f or sum ma ry judgm ent

.
Follow ing an April 16, 200 9 hea ring on the partie s’ com pet ing mo tions f or sum ma ry
jud gm e n t
, t h e trial court gr ant ed NICO’s mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt and den ied the

Sta te’s mo tion f or s u m m a ry judgme nt on April 21, 200 9, and ent ered f inal judgme nt on
May 7, 200 9. Base d on the language in the townsite ma p, the trial court ma de f indings in

its judgme nt, am ong oth ers, t h a t: (1) the rig ht-of -w ay ease me nt f or pub lic road w ay

purp oses only extends to the prese nt curb lines, thirty- f iv e f eet in eithe r direction f rom the

cent erline of Arroy o Bou levard; (2) th e b uilding and all structu res atta ched the reto are

ent irely out side the curb lines esta blished on Arroy o Bou le vard and are not an

encro achm ent into the rig ht-of -w a y e a s e m e n t; and (3) NICO, as the successo r in title to

A. H. Fernan dez, has retain ed the rig ht to ma ke im p ro ve me nts to the portio n of Arroy o

Bou levard lyi n g in the f if tee n-f oot area bet w een the street line and the curb line. T his

app eal e nsue d.

4II. S T A N D A R D O F R E V I E W

W e rev iew the orde r gr ant ing NICO’s traditio nal mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt and

den y ing the Sta te’s traditio nal mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt de novo. S e e V a le nce
Ope rating Co. v. Dorsett

, 164 S.W .3d 656

, 661 (Te x

. 200 5). W hen rev iew ing a sum ma ry
judgme nt, w e take as true all evidence f avorable to the non mo v ant
, and w e indu lge every

reaso nab le in f eren ce and resolve any dou bts in the non mo v ant 's f avor. Id

. W hen bot h

partie s mo v e f or sum ma ry judgme nt on the sam e issues and the trial court gr ant s one

mo tion and den ies the oth er, as here

, the rev iew ing court consid ers the sum ma ry judgme nt

evidence prese nte d by bot h sides, det ermin es all question s prese nte d, and if the rev iew ing

court det ermin es tha t the trial court erred, rend ers the judgme nt the trial court shou ld have

rend ered

. Id .; see FM P rops. Ope rating Co. v. City of A ustin , 22 S.W .3d 86 8, 8 72 (Te x

.
200 0).

III. A N A L Y S I S

Each party in this case prese nts the 192 8 townsite ma p as the basis f or esta blishing

its ent itlem ent to a ju d gm e n t as a ma tter of law

, and the interp retat ion of tha t docu me nt

det ermin es o ur disp osition on ea ch o f the Sta te’s issue s on ap pea l.
“[T] he cardina l rule of const ruction upo n the subje ct of ded ication by ma ps or plats

is tha t w hich prevails respe cting ordina ry gr ant s, and tha t is to discover and giv e ef f ect to

the i nte ntion of the party as ma nif este d by

his acts.” Priolo v. City of Dallas , 257 S.W .2d

947

, 952 (Te x

. Civ. A p p

. – Dallas 195 3, w rit ref ’d n.r.e .). In orde r to giv e ef f ect to the

inten t io n s o f t h e gr ant ing party, “[a] plat or ma p mu st be f airly and reaso nab ly

const rued

. . . [an d] mu st be consid ered as a w hole ; all lines, f igures, lette rs, and records

used the reon mu st be consid ered

. In short, no part of a plat or ma p is to be rejecte d as

supe rf luou s or me anin gless, if it can be avoided. ” Cope land v. City of Dallas

, 454 S.W .2d

5279 , 28 3 (T ex. Civ . Ap p.– Dallas 19 70, w rit ref ’d n. r.e.).

A

. The Outermos t Fifteen Fee t of A rroy o Boulev ard
By its f irst issue, the Sta te cont end s tha t the out ermo st f if tee n f eet on eithe r side of

the designat ed curb lines of Arroy o Bou levard are restricted to pub lic use and tha t it is an

encro achm ent on the Sta te’s rig ht-of -w ay ease me nt f or a priv ate owner to build on, or

oth erw ise restrict a ccess to , th at se gmen t of prop erty.

NICO and the Sta te agree in this case tha t the 192 8 townsite ma p explicitly shows

the w idth of each road tha t w as bein g ded icated to pub lic use, and

, specif ically

, tha t Arroy o

Bou levard is shown to be “100 , 50x50" or 100 fee t w ide. Addition ally , each party agrees

tha t the ded icating language provides tha t all ded ication s in the townsite ma p are “subject

to the cond itions, restrictions and reservations [the rein ] e n u m erate d,” and am ong the se

“cond itions” is tha t the curb line on Arroy o Bou levard “shall be f if tee n f eet inside the street

line.”

It is clear tha t NICO is the f ee simp le owner of the portio n o f Arroy o Bou levard

im m e d ia t e ly adjo ining its prop erty and ly ing bet w een the east ernm ost bou nda ry of its

prop erty and the cen terline of Arr oyo Bou levard, subje ct only to a ri ght-of -w ay easem ent

gr ant ed to the Sta te. In oth er w ords, the Sta te doe s not own the prop erty on w hich Arroy o

Bou levard is currently locate d; it only has the ability to use tha t prop erty f or the purp ose of

a public roa dway , an d o nly subject t o th e co nditio ns, re strictions, and reservations in the

ded ication language cont aine d in the origi nal townsite ma p. T he prop osition tha t a gr ant or

ma intain s f ee simp le ownership of prop erty designat ed f or pub lic use is w ell-settled T exas

law

. 1

S e e H u m b l e O i l & R e f

. C o

. v

. B l a n k e n b u r

g , 1 4 9 T e x

. 4 9 8

, 2 3 5 S

. W

. 2 d 8 9 1

, 8 9 3 ( 1 9 5 1 ) ( “ [ T ] h e 1 d e d i c a t i o n

. . . [ f o r ] t h e u s e a n d b e n e f i t o f t h e p u b l i c d i d n o t c o n v e y t h e T o w n s i t e C o m p a n y ' s t i t l e

. I t c r e a t e d

a n e a s e m e n t
, t h e f e e r e m a i n i n g i n t h e T o w n s i t e C o m p a n y s u b j e c t t o t h e e a s e m e n t

. ” ) ; s e e a l s o P i t t m a n v

. C i t y
6If w e w ere to hold tha t the townsite ma p gav e the Sta te a rig ht-of -w ay ease me nt to

the ent ire 100 -f o o t -wi dth indicat ed on the ma p, w e w ould be consid ering the cond ition

include d in the designat ing language—th at the curb lines w ere to be f if tee n f eet inside the

street line—to be simp ly “supe rf luou s or me anin gless,” and f or tha t reaso n, w e cann ot so

hold

. See Cope land

, 454 S.W .2d at 283

. T he designat ing language specif ically not es an
exception to the townsite ma p’s indicat ion tha t the Sta te’s rig ht-of -w ay ease me nt w ould be

100 f eet w ide by not ing “that [the ] curb line shall be ten (10) f eet inside the line of all street s

and bou levards abo v e me ntion ed, w ith ten (10) f eet radius curv atu re at all block corne rs,
except on Arroy o Bou levard w here the curb line shall be f if tee n (15) f eet inside the str eet

line.” T his language is clear an d u n a m b iguous, and the ref ore, to “g iv e ef f ect to the

inten tion of the [grantor] as ma nif este d,” we u p h o ld the trial court’s interp retat ion of the

townsite ma p. See Priolo

, 257 S.W .2d at 952

. Spe cif ically

, w e hold tha t the townsite ma p

limited the rig ht-of -w ay ease me nt f or road w a y purp oses to a ma x imu m of seventy f eet
,
bein g thirty- f iv e f eet on eithe r side of the cent erline of Arroy o Bou levard to the east ernm ost

and w este rnmo st curb lines. W e o v errule th e S tate ’s f irst issue.

B. Curb Line v s. S treet Line
By its secon d issue, the Sta te cont end s tha t, even tho ugh NI CO ’s buildin g and
awning- covered sidewalk are out side the curb line, the buildin g a n d awning- covered

sidewalk are insid e th e stree t line, and the ref ore, const itute an en croach me nt.

o f A m a r i l l o , 5 9 8 S

. W

. 2 d 9 4 1

, 9 4 4 ( T e x

. C i v

. A p p

. – A m a r i l l o 1 9 8 0

, w r i t r e f ’ d n

. r

. e

. ) ( c i t i n g H i l l F a r m , I n c

. v

. H i

l l C o u n t y , 4 3 6 S

. W

. 2 d 3 2 0

, 3 2 1 ( T e x

. 1 9 6 9 ) ; C i t y o f M i s s i o n v

. P o p p l e w e l l

, 1 5 6 T e x

. 2 6 9

, 2 9 4 S

. W

. 2 d 7 1 2

, 7 1 5 ( 1 9 5 6 ) ; C i t

y o f F o r t W o r t h v

. S w

. M a g a z i n e , 3 5 8 S

. W

. 2 d 1 3 9

, 1 4 1 ( T e x

. C i v

. A p p

. – F o r t W o r t h 1 9 6 2

, w r i t r e f ' d

n

. r

. e

. ) ; T e x

. C o

. v

. T e x a r k a n a M a c h

. S h o p s , 1 S

. W

. 2 d 9 2 8

, 9 3 1 ( T e x

. C i v

. A p p

. – T e x a r k a n a 1 9 2 8

, n o w r i t ) ) ( “ W h e n a r o a d o r s t r e e t i s d e d i c a t e d t o t h e p u b l i c , t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t y e x e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e
s t r e e t o r d i n a r i l y a c q u i r e s o n l y a n e a s e m e n t i n t h e s t r e e t a n d h o l d s t h e s t r e e t i n t r u s t f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e p u b l i c

. T h e e a s e m e n t h e l d b y t h e g o v e r n m e n t a l e n t i t y n e c e s s a r i l y c a r r i e s w i t h i t t h e r i g h t t o u s e a n d c o n t r o l

a s m u c h o f t h e s u r f a c e o r s u b s u r f a c e o f t h e s t r e e t a s m a y b e r e a s o n a b l y n e e d e d f o r s t r e e t p u r p o s e s

. U n l e s s t h e d e d i c a t i o n s t a t e s o t h e r w i s e , t h e a b u t t i n g l a n d o w n e r o w n s t h e f e e s i m p l e t i t l e t o t h e c e n t e r o f t h e s t r e e t
, s u b j e c t t o t h e p u b l i c e a s e m e n t

. ” )

. 7Havi ng held tha t the road wa y e a s e m e nt doe s not extend past the curb line, the

question is w het her the Sta te owns an ease me nt to the add itiona l f if tee n f eet f or any oth er

purp oses besid es a ro a d wa y s u c h tha t NICO w ould not be perm itted to build on tha t

prop erty. T he ded icating language ma nif ests only an inten t to ded icate Arroy o Bou levard

f o r u s e a s a pub lic road w ay, and beca use the road w ay w as limited to the seventy f eet

inside the curb lines, a s the townsite m ap clearlyindica tes, the n it mu st be the case tha t

the add itiona l f if

tee n f eet w as not ded icated f or any pub lic use w hat soever. T here f ore, w e

hold tha t the Sta te’s pub lic use rig ht-of -w ay f or any oth er purp oses did not extend out side

the seventy f eet f rom curb line to curb line

.
T he Sta te correctly poin ts out
, tha t “w here a w idth of l and i s dedicate d to r oad w ay

ease me nt, the am oun t ded icated is not red u c e d by actu al use of a lesser w idth. ”

Ste inbe rger v. Archer Coun ty
, 621 S.W .2d 838

, 842 (Te x

. App .–Fo rt W orth 198 1, no w rit).

T he Sta te poin ts us to the case of Josep h v. City of Aust in

, w here a similar dispu te arose

abo ut t he out ermo st f if tee n f eet of a road w ay d edica ted to pub lic u se. 10 1 S .W .2d 38 1,

383 (Te x

. Civ

. App .–A ustin 193 6, w rit ref ’d). Josep h is distinguisha ble, howev er, beca use

the re is no i ndica tion tha t a specif ic reservation o f the ou term ost f if

tee n f eet ap pea red in

t h e ded ication language, nor tha t the re w as a specif ic designat ion as to w here the c u rb

lines w ould be place d. See id

. W e do not const rue the t o wnsite ma p in this case to

convey any road w ay ease me nt beyond tha t currently bein g used —the seventy f eet inside

the designat ed curb lines. W e co nstrue the “street line,” a s ref eren ced in th e d edica tion
language, to be me rely a ref eren ce point f rom w hich the curb line can be describe d. For

the sam e rea sons discusse d a bove, we hold that the Stat e’s only rig ht-of -w ay easem ent

f or street use is w ithin the current seventy- f oot w idth of Arr oyo Bou levard, and theref ore,

8the re is no encro achm ent so long as the buildin g is o u t s id e t h e curb line. T he partie s

agree tha t NICO’s buildin g is at least f iv e f eet out side the curb line, and t h e re f ore, w e

overrule the Sta te’s se cond issue.

C. State’s Duty

to Remov e E ncroac hments
By its third issue, the Sta te co n t e nds tha t it has an af f irmative dut y to remo v e an

encro achm ent f rom a rig ht-of -w ay ded icated to pub lic use. Beca use w e have alread y held

tha t NICO’s buildin g and awning covered sidewalk do not extend into the Sta te’s pub lic use
rig ht-of -w ay, w e o v errule th e S tate ’s third issu e.

D. State’s Disc retion to Determi ne Curb Line Pla cem ent
By its f ourth issue, the Sta te co nte nds tha t th e d edica ting language in the original

townsite ma p could not permissibly cont rol the State’s discretion in determ ining w here to
place the curb lines o n A rroy o B oule v ard; thu s, th e S tate reta ined the ab ility to place the

curb lines f or Arroy o Bou levard at a w idth of up to 100 f eet

. W e have alread y held tha t the

ded ication l angua ge w as intend ed only to create a pub lic road r ight-of -w ay ease me nt f or

the seventy f e e t in w hich Arroy o Bou levard is currently locate d, not the ent ire 100 f oot

w idth indicat ed in one portio n of the townsite ma p. T he Sta te’s di s c re tion to designat e

w here the curb line w ill b e place d extends only o u t t o it s c u rr ent positio n of seventy f eet

f rom curb to curb. T hou gh w e agree th at t he Sta te h as d iscretion to d ete rmine w here in

its rig ht-of -w ay it w ill build a road w ay, it doe s not have discretion to build a road w ay out side

o f it s rig ht-of -w ay ease me nt. See Josep h

, 101 S.W .2d at 385 (notin g tha t “[t]he p u b li c

aut horities are the exclusiv e jud ge s [ o f ] wh en and to w hat extent the street s shall be
imp rov ed, ” but limiting this general rule to intere sts in w hich the re is a “pub lic intere st”). For

the reaso ns state d here and in our const ruction of the townsite m a p a b o ve , w e overrule

9the Sta te’s f orth issue.

E. Public Polic y

Add itiona lly

, t h ro u ghout its brief

, the Sta te app eals to pub lic policy in an ef f ort to

convince this Court o f

the nece ssity of f inding tha t the rig ht-of -w ay e asem ent extends to

100 f eet in w idth. In o ne instan ce, t he Sta te n ote s tha t “[t]h e d em and s of the pub lic a nd

the progress of the area surroun ding Los Fresnos require Arroy o Bou levard/FM1847 to be

w iden ed and imp rov ed. ” W e are w holly unco nvinced of the negative pub lic policy ef f ects

of af f irming the tr ial court’s j udgm ent in this case beca use the Sta te ma intain s the ability

to cond em n the prop erty f or pub lic use if it is inde ed nece ssary f or the pub lic ben ef it, and

m o re o ve r, t h is Court is not perm itted to create prop erty rig hts in orde r to satisf y som e

perc eived pub lic nee d. See gen erally T E X

. P R O P

. C O D E A N N

. §§ 21. 011 -.016 (Verno n

200 8) (out lining the proce dure s f or em inen t do ma in con dem nat ion).

IV. C O N C L U S I O N

For the f orgoing reaso ns, w e af f irm the trial court’s orde r gr ant ing NICO’s mo tion f or

sum ma ry judgem ent and den y ing the Sta te’s mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt, and w e af f irm

the trial cou rt’s f inal d eclarat oryjudgm ent f indings in t heir e ntirety. 2

___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ GINA M. B ENAVI DES, Justice

Deliv ered an d f iled th e 16t h d ay of

Decem ber, 201 0.

A s w e a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t
, w e n e e d n o t r e a c h N I C O ’ s c o u n t e r i s s u e o n a p p e a l

. S e e T E X

. R

. A P P

. 2 P

. 4 7

. 1

, 4 7

. 4

. 10