### NUM BER 13-09- 0015 9-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
C I T YO F E D I N B U R G AN D T H E T E XAS DEP A RT M ENTOF T RA NSP ORTA TION , A pp ellan ts,
v. A .P .I . PI PE & SUPPLY, LLC A ND PA IS A NO SERVICE C OM PA NY, INC ., A pp ellees .

On a p p ea l f ro m th e C o u n ty C o u rta t L aw N o . 2 of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas . 

## O P I N I O N B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a

Opin ion b y

Ju stice B en av ide s Appel lan ts, the Ci ty

of Edi nburg ( the “ Ci ty” ) and t he Tex as Dep artment of T ransp ortat ion (“TxDot”), appe al the trial cou rt ’s d e n ia l of their plea to the jurisdiction in favor of a ppe llees, AP I Pipe a nd Su pply, LLC and Paisa no Serv ice Co., Inc. (collectiv ely “A PI/P ais ano” ). See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 51.014( a) (8 ) (V er non 2008)

. By
one issue, the City

and TxDot argue thatthey have sov ereign imm unity from API/P aisan o’sT hi s i s t he se cond t i m e t hi s C our t has addr essed t hi s case, and t he f act s r el ev ant t o t he f i r st app eal 1 a re a g a i n re l e v a n t t o th e i n s ta n t a p p e a l

. See gener al l y Tex. D ept

. of Tra nsp. v. A. P. I

. Pi pe & Suppl

y, LLC , N o. 13- 07- 221- C V, 200 8 W L 99 629 ( T ex. App. –C or pus C hri st i Jan. 10, 200 8, no pet

. ) ( m em
. op. , not d e s i g n a te d fo r p u b l i c a ti o n ).

A t t he t i m e t he C i t y fi l ed i t s pet i t i on, t he p r oper t y was owned by H

. B. W hi t e a/ k / a Her schel l B. W hi t e. 2 A P I/P a is a n o p u rc h a s e d t h e p ro p e rty fro m W h i t e a t a l a t e r d a t e a n d , t h u s , w e re n o t p a rti e s t o t h e C i t y 's c o n d e m n a ti o n p ro c e e d i n g
. 2 c l ai ms
. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND 1 A . Origina l Suit for Condemnation On F ebr uar

y 24, 2003, the C it y

fil ed a peti ti on for conde mnati on in C ounty C our t at Law N o. 4, H ida lg o C ounty , Tex as. The pe ti ti on soug ht to acq uire fee ti tl e to 9.869 acres of land ou t of

Blocks 37, 38, an d 39 of the S a n t a C ru z R a n ch Sub divi sion for the p ublic p u rp o se of

la ying o u t, op e n in g, co n st ru ct in g, re co n st ru ct in g, m a in ta in in g, a n d op e ra ti n g a
cer tai n r ig ht- of-w ay

for U .S. Hi g hw ay

281 dr ain ag e outfall dit ches

. In i ts peti ti on, t he C it y se t o u t t h e fo llo wing:

That the Pl ain ti ff

[t he C it y ] and the Defe n d a nt [ H. B. W hit e a/k /a Hersc hel l B. W hit e] hav e been unabl e to ag re e on the v alu e of sai d real 2 est ate a nd interesttherei n to be c ondemned o r the d amag es occ asi oned by the a cq uis it ion of suc h l and and as k t hat Sp e cia l Commi ss ion ers b e appoi nted as prov ide d by l aw to ass ess the d a m a ges of the D efendant. W HE RE FO RE , PREM ISES CON SID ER ED , Pl ain ti ff respec ti v ely

pray s t hat three di si nterest ed freeh old ers b e appoint ed as Spec ial C ommis si oners t o a ss ess the damag es, [s ic ] of D efendant; t hat t he s aid Spec ial Co m m is s io n e rs f il e d [ s ic ] t h e ir d e c is io n a s re qu ir e d b y la w; t h a tP la in t if f h a ve a f ina l jud g ment of

condemnati on v est ing in the f ee titl e to sai d l and and the ri g hts therein , al l as more par ti cul ar ly se t outabov e. .
. . On A pr il 25, 2003, a spec ial commi ss ion ers hear ing w as hel d. W hit e, t he l andow ner at t hat t ime, and the Ci ty present ed ev ide nce of the v alu e of the proper ty bas ed on apprais als prepared for each par ty by diff er ent appr ais ers. T he apprai ser hir ed by the Ci ty
v alu ed c ompensat ion due W hit e at $165,19 6, an d W h it e 's apprais er v alu ed th e3

compens ati on due at $326,721. Each apprai ser va lue d the compensati on based on a f ee si mple acq uis it ion

. The spec ial commiss ion ers aw arded $224,249 to W hit e as adeq uate compens ati on for the p ro per ty bei ng condemned. T hey also aw arded t he C it y

"al l ri g hts desc ri bed and pray ed for in Pl ain ti ff 's Or ig ina l Stat ement an d Pet it ion for C ondemnati on." On M ay 1, 2003, the C it y depos it ed $224,24 9 int o the cour t' s reg is tr y , and on M ay 7, 20 03, W hite w ithdre w t he mo ney. Neither party objected to the special com mission ers’
aw ard. On J une 3, 2003, Hi dal g o Cou nty Cou rt at Law N umber 4 en tered i ts "Judg ment of Cour t i n Abs ence of Obj ect ion " ( the “ 2003 J udg ment” ) adopti ng the spec ial
c o m m is s io n e rs ' a wa rd t h a tve s t e d fe e t it le in t h e Ci t y. On May 19, 200 4, ho w ever, the cou nty court ente red a "Ju dgme nt Nun c Pro Tu nc" (t he “ 2004 J udg ment” ) re g ardin g the same 9 .869 acres of prope rty . This order stated the fo llo wing: [The C it y ] is e n ti tl ed to co ndemn, a nd [d oes] hereby hav e j udg ment against th e ab ove nam ed Def end ant and any othe r intereste d pa rties for a ri ght o f way

eas em ent ov er

thatreal proper

ty des cr ibe d i n Ex hib it"A" a nd "B" for th e pur pose of openin g , c onst ru cti ng and maint ain ing a pe rmanent chann el or

drain ag e eas ement i n, al ong , upo n and across sa id proper ty togeth e r w ith the rig ht an d priv ilege at all times of the [City], its ag ent s, e m p lo ye e s and represen tatives of ingress an d egress to and f rom sa id proper ty for t he pur pose of makin g any i mpro vements, modific ati ons or re pai rs w hic h [C it y ] dee ms nec ess ar y . (E mphasi s added)

. The 2004 Judg ment als o prov ide d that it "supercedes and makes [t he] 'J udg ment of C our

t i n Abs ence of Obje cti on' si g ned on June 3, 20 03[,] nul l and v oid , w ithou t ef

fect an d v acat ed b y

t his Court. T his Court here by ent ers the Ju dgme nt Nun c Pro Tunc as the sol e and final jud g ment of the cas e." The 2004 J udg ment w as filed i n the real proper ty records on M ay

19, 2004. In S eptember 2004, throug h a g eneral w ar ra nty deed w it h a v endor 's l ien att ached , API/ Paisa no p urcha sed a ppro x ima tely t h ir t y-four acres f rom W hite. This pu rchaseAPI al so asse r t ed a cl ai m f or conv er si on. 3 4 inc lud ed th e 9.8 69 ac re s o f land at i ss ue in thi s cas e, subj ect to an eas ement g ra nted to the C it y as se t fort h i n the 2004 Judg ment. On June 22, 2 005, th e C it y gra n ted a n easementov er

the proper

ty i n q uest ion to the State of Tex as, byand throug h Tx DO T, "for th e p u rp o se o f o p e n in g, con st ru ct in g a n d m a in ta in in g a p e rm a n e n t cha n n e l o r d ra in a ge easement ." On May 16, 2006, API/ Pai sano filed thei r or ig ina l peti ti on ag ain st the C it y and T xD o t , c la im in g inve rse co n d e m n a ti o n fo r th e ta kin g of so il lo ca te d w it h in th e dra in a ge chann el. Tx DO T and th e C it y fil ed pl eas to the jur is dic ti on, w hic h the tri al cour t den ied

. 3 B. Th e F irstA pp eal Tx Dotand the C it y

appeal ed th e tr ial co urt’ s r uli ng on t hei r ple a to the j ur is dic ti on. See gener

all y T ex. D ept. of T

ra nsp. v. A.P .I. Pi

pe & Suppl

y, LLC , N o. 13 -0 7- 221- CV , 200 8 W L 996 2 9 ( Te x . A p p
. – C o r p u s C h r i s t i J a n
. 1 0 , 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t

. ) ( me m. o p
. , n o td esi g nated for pub lication). T x Dot an d the City argued tha t the y

w ere imm une f rom a suit for inv erse conde mnati on becau se API/ Pai sano did not hav e an int er est in the p ro per ty

. Tx Dotand the C it y reason ed th at t he 20 04 J udg ment w as v oid bec ause itw as is sued after the t ri al
cour t’ s p len ar

y pow er ex pired and becau se it pur por ted t o s ubst anti v ely

ch ang e the ju d gm e nt. Id. a t * 4

. Th u s , t h e C i t y a n d Tx D o t a rg u e d t h a t t h e 2 0 0 3 J u d g me n tw as the eff ect iv e j udg ment and g ra nted the C it y ti tl e to the p ro per

ty i n fee si mple. Id. W e ag re ed th at t he 2004 Judg ment w as v oid and that the 2003 J udg ment g ra nted the C it y ti tl e to the p ro per

ty in fee si mple. Id. W e hel d, ho w ev er , t hat facti ss ues pr ecl uded a de cision on wheth er A PI/P aisan o had a n intere st in the prope rty as good faith p urcha sers for v alu e:5

Altho ugh w e ha v e con clude d tha t the City acquired the prope rty

at issue in fee si mple pursuant

to the 2 003 J udg ment, an unrecorded c onv ey ance of any i nteresti n real proper

ty i s v oid as to a credi tor or subs eq uent pur chas er w ho g iv es v alu abl e c o n sid e rati on and is w it hout act ual noti ce of the transac ti on. There is ev ide nce in the re co rd t h a t onl y the v oid 2004 Judg ment w as re corded and thatAPI purchas ed the p ro p e rty from W hit e subje ct to an ease me nt ow ned by the City

. T here is no suppo rt in the record to es tabl is h tha t t he c onv ey ance to the Ci ty in fee si mple, aw arded pursuant to t he 2003 Ju dg ment, w as re corded. F urther more, API as ser ts i t d id not have actu al knowledge of the 200 3 Judgm ent

. T hus, fact q uest ions rem ain w hich af fect the ju risdictiona l issue of app ellant ’s immu nity claim. Becau se a tr ial co urt c annot g ra n t the p lea to the j ur is dic ti on i f the ev ide nce creates a fact questio n regarding the jurisdictiona l issue, t h e t rial court correctly deni ed appe ll ants ’ ple as to t he j ur is dic ti on. Id. at *5 ( ci tati ons omit ted)

. Therefor e, w e aff ir med the tr ial co urt’ s d eni al of the C it y and Tx Dot ’s pl ea to the jur is dic ti on, a nd th e c ase proceed ed i n the tr ial co urt. C. Subse quent Procee dings Aft e r t h e a p p e a l , Tx D o t a n d t h e C i t y fi l e d a s e c o n d p l e a t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n
. I n the
sec ond pl ea, Tx Dotand the C it y arg ued t hat t he 2003 Ju dg ment w as re corde d i n the off ic ial records of Hi dal g o C ounty , Tex as on Apr il 28, 2004. Tx Dotand the C it y att ached
a cer ti fied copy of t he 2003 Judg ment, w hic h show s itw as re corded as doc ument nu mber 132 835 4 in the prope rty records on A pril 28, 20 04, at 2:5 7 p.m .—be fore API /Pa isano ’s pur chas e of the prope rt y o n Aug ust30, 2004. Tx Dotand the C it y cl aimed that API / P a i s a n o w e r e n o t g o o d fa i t h p u r c h a s e rs fo r v a l u e w i t h o u t n o t i c e b e c a u s e the 2003 Judg ment w as re corded i n the off ic ial proper ty records pr ior

to API/ Pai sano’ s p ur chas e of the p ro p e rt y

a n d b e c a u s e t h e 2 0 0 4 J u d g me n tre fe r e n c e s t h e 2 0 0 3 J u d g me n t , p ro v idi ng them w it h ac tual noti ce of the C it y ’s i nteresti n the proper ty

. T he City and TxDot f urthe r claime d tha t API/ Paisa no’s suit was not just for inv erse conde mnati on butfor t re spas s t o tr y ti tl e, an d theyare immune from s uch a s uit

. The Ci ty and Tx Dotco ntended thattheyw er e immune f ro m sui t for anynegl ig ence cl aim and t hatAPI / Pai sano al so am ended i t s pet i t i on t o dr op i t s cl ai m f or conv er si on, l eav i ng o nl y t he cl ai m f or 4 i nv er se con dem nat i on.

Al t h o u g h n o t e x p l a i n e d i n t h e b r i e f s o r i n t h e r e c o r d , b a s e d o n t h e c o n t e x t , w e b e l i e v e t h a t “ ROW ” 5 s ta n d s fo r “R i g h t o f W a y .” 6 a par ty canno t acq uire a proper ty int er est adv erse to a g ov er nmental enti ty by the appl ic ati on of an eq uit abl e doc tr ine su ch as est oppel , l aches , a d vers e pos ses si on, der eli cti on, o r the a cts o r conduct of thei r off ic ers o r ag ents

. Al ter nati v ely , t he C it y and Tx Dotarg ued t hat a ny

i ntere st A PI /Paisa no had in the p ro per ty w oul d be subj ectto the easementgran te d i n the 2004 Judg ment, w hic h al low ed th e C it y and Tx Dot , as i ts
a ss ign e e , t h e righ t t o us e al l m a te ria ls in th e ea se m e n t fo r th e pu rp o se of co n st ru ct in g,
re pai ri ng , or

i mprov ing the hig hw ay
. API/ Pai sano filed a respon se to t he ple a and inc or porated ev ide nce attac hed to an
ear li er-fil ed moti on for par ti al summar

y j udgm e n t. API/Pai sano arg ued t hat t he 2004 Judg ment w as an ag re ed j udg ment t hat w as approv ed by (1 ) couns el for th e W hit es; ( 2)
couns el for th e C it y

of Edi nburg ; and (3) T x Dotrepresent ati v es. API /Pai sano submi tted 4 a facsi mil e from M ary M. Kel ly of the C it y

of Edi nburg ’s Publ icW or ks D epar tment to t he Ci ty ’s att or ney

i nst ru cti ng him to ex ecut e the 2004 Judg ment and to forw ard i t t o the C it y after re cordin g i t “ for Tx Dotsubmis si on, as they req uire ori g ina l document s w it h f iel d not es & parce l plats as att ache d exhibits.” API/Pa isano also subm itte d a n e -m a il f rom Pe dro Seg undo w it h Tx Dotto Kel ly , s tating that he “ spok e to Ran dy W ard, R OW Att or ney 5 regarding the prop osed Judgme nt Nunc Pro T unc for the a bove subje ct parcel. Mr. W ard h a s n o p ro b le m wit h t h e Dr a f ta s p re s e n t e d b y” t h e Ci t y’s a t t o rn e y. API /Pai sano arg ued t hat b y ex ecutin g t h e 2 0 04 J udg ment, the C it y and Tx Dot per mitt ed the W hit es to hold ev ide nce of compl ete ow nershi p of the proper

ty i n fee si mple, and t he 2004 Ju dg ment w as int ended t o be re li ed up o n and w as, i n fact, reli ed upon by7

thi rd par ti es. Thus , AP I/Pa is ano purchas ed th e proper ty i n g ood fait h, an d the l aw i mputes onto Tx Dotand the C it y “ some d e gre e o f

n e g li g ence, for w hic h the y oug ht t o s uff er .” API/ Pai sano arg ued t hat a t mos t, they w er e onl y

su bje ct to t he eas ement g ra nted in the 2004 J udg ment, w hic h di d notpe rm it Tx Dotto re mov e s oil from t he proper ty w it hout compens ati on. On S eptember

2, 2008, the t ri al cour

t held a heari ng on the plea to t he j ur is dic ti on. On Dec e m b e r 1 8, 20 09, t he tr ial co urt den ied the ple a, an d thi s i nter loc utor y appeal
ensue d. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW “A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilat oryplea, the pu rpose of w hich is to de feata cause of action w ithou t regard to w het her the claims asserted have me rit.” See Bland Indep. Sch. Di st. v. Blue , 3 4 S

. W

. 3 d 5 4 7 , 5 5 4 ( Te x . 2 0 0 0 )

. A p l e a t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n t e s t s the t ri al
cour t’ s s ubj ect -mat ter

j ur is dic ti on. Tex. D ept. of Tr ansp. v. Jo nes , 8 S

. W

. 3 d 6 3 6 , 6 3 8 (T e x. 1999)

. W hen a plea to the jurisdictio n ch allenges th e plain tif f ’s plead ings, “[w]he the r a ple ader has al leg ed facts thataff ir mati v ely demons trate a tr ial cou rt 's su bje ct[ -] matter j ur i s di c ti on i s a q ue s ti on of l aw r ev i ew ed de no v o.” T e x . D e p t . of Pa rks & W ildlife v. Mi ra nda , 1 3 3 S. W .3 d 21 7 , 2 2 6 (T e x. 20 0 4 ). Th e tr ia l co u rt m u st co n st ru e th e pl e a d in gs li berall y i n fav or of th e p leader

. Id. I f the pl eadi ng s d o notal leg e facts su ff ic ien t t o aff ir mati v ely

demons trate jur is dic ti on, but the ple adi ng defects ar e curabl e by amendment, the i ss ue i s o ne of pl eadi ng su ff ic ien cy , and the ple ader sh oul d be off er ed an oppor tuni ty to amend

. Id. at 226- 27. If the ple a to th e jurisdiction ch allenges th e existence of jurisdictional facts, h owev er,
w e rev iew

the ev ide nce submi tted by the par ti es. Id. at 227. “ [W ]heth e r undi sput ed8

ev ide nce of jur is dic ti onal facts es tabl is hes a tr ial co urt' s j ur is dic ti on i s a ls o a q uest ion of law .” Id. at 226. I f

e v ide nce is su bmit ted reg ardin g the tr ial co urt’ s s ubj ect -mat ter jur is dic ti on th at i s i nter tw ine d w it h the mer it s o f the c ase , we re v iew thatev ide nce to deter mine if there i s a fact q uest ion

. Id. at 227- 28. If so, the t ri al cour t mus t den y

the ple a to t he j ur is dic ti on and submi t t he i ss ue to the finder of fact. Id. III . I N VERSE C ONDE MNA TI ON The Ci ty and Tx Dotco ncede thatthe Tex as Cons ti tuti on w aiv es sov er eig n i mmunity for i nv erse conde mnati on c lai ms. See G en. S er vs . Comm ’

n v . Little- Tex

Ins ula ti on C o. , 39 S. W .3 d 59 1, 59 8- 99 ( Tex

. 20 01 )

. The y arg ue , ho w ev er , th at a prop er inv erse cond em nat ion claim nece ssarily requires a showing tha t the cla ima nt ha d a com pen sable i n t e r e s ti n t h e p ro p e rt y . S e e T e x. D ep’ t of T ra nsp. v. Cit

y o f Su nset

Val ley, 146 S.W .3d 6 3 7 , 6 4 4 (T e x. 2 0 0 4 ). I f A P I / P a is a n o d o n o th a ve a co m p e n s a b le in t e re s tin t h e p ro p e rt y, t h e n T xDo ta n d t h e Ci t y a re im m u n e f ro m su itu n d e r t h e d o c t ri n e o f so ve re ig n im m u n it y. See i d. at 645- 46; see als o Little- Tex Ins ula ti on C o. , 39 S.W .3d a t 598 -9 9. Our dec is ion i n the f irst appeal establ is hed that the 2004 Judg ment w as v oid , and t h e 2 0 0 3 J u d g me n t v e s t e d t i t l e t o t h e p ro p e rt y i n t h e C i t y i n fe e s i mp l e
. Te x. D e p t. of Tr ansp. , 200 8 W L 99 629 , at *4- 5

. A P I / Paisa no a ssert, ho w ever, that th ey w ere subs eq uent g ood fait h purchas ers for v alu e bec ause the 2 004 Judg ment, w hic h g ra nted the C it y onl y an e asementand not fee simpl e ti tl e to the p ro per ty , w as re corded i n the county deed re cords, and they reli ed upon the 2004 J udg ment w hen t hey purchas ed th e proper ty from W hit e. The Ci ty and Tx Dotdi sput e tha t API/Pai sano can be g ood fait h purchas ers for
v alue . First, the City and T x Dot argue tha t API/ Paisa no canno t rely on e quitable d octrine s,9

s uc h as t he g oo d fai th p urc ha s er for v al ue d octr i ne o r

e s to pp el , to t ak e ti tl e aw ay f rom a g ov er nmental enti ty. Ad dit ion all y , t he C it y and Tx Dotarg ue th at A PI/P ais ano c annot be g ood fait h purchas ers for v alu e bec ause the 2 003 J udg ment w as a lso recorded and becau se API/ Pai sano had ac tual noti ce of it. Second, the Ci ty and Tx Dotarg ue th at AP I/ Pa isa n o ’s su it is rea lly fo r tr e sp a ss to try tit le an d ne glige n ce , a n d th e y ha ve so vere ign immuni ty from t hese cl aims . Al ter native ly, Tx Dotand the C it y arg ue th at t he eas ement g ra nted in the 2 004 J udg ment al low s t hem to tak e and keep any so il ex cav ated from the draina ge ditches; theref ore, AP I/Pa isano do no t have a com pen sable prop erty intere st in the e x cav ated soi l. F or the re asons thatfoll ow , w e di sag re e. A . Good Faith Purchase rs for Value Sect ion 13.0 1( a) of the Tex as Proper ty C ode prov ide s: A c o n veyan ce of

rea l p ro p e rt y o r a n in te re st in re a l p ro p e rt y o r a m o rt gage or dee d of

trust is v oid as t o a c re ditor or to a sub sequen t purcha ser for a v alu abl e c onsi derati on w it hout n o tice unl ess the ins tr ument ha s b een a c k n o wle d ge d , swo rn t o , o r p ro ve d a n d f il e d fo r r e c o rd a s re qu ir e d b y la w. T EX
. P R O P E R T Y C OD E A NN
. § 13. 01( a) ( Ver non 200 3)

. Stat ed ot her w is e, a “g ood fait h purch aser fo r v alue ” is one w ho a cquires real prop erty in good faith, for v alua ble
cons ide ra ti on, a nd w it hout actu al or constr uct iv e know led g e of an outs tandi ng equi ty

or an adv erse int er estor

ti tl e. See id. ; Colvin v. Alta Mesa Res., Inc. , 9 2 0 S

. W

. 2 d 6 8 8 , 6 9 1 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 1996, w ri t denied)

. It is undis puted that both the 2 003 and 2004 Judg ments w er e fil ed i n the off ic ial proper ty records pr ior

to API/ Pai sano’ s p ur chas e. Addi ti onal ly , t he C it y

and Tx Dot do not d is pute that they ag re ed to the 2004 J udg ment and took ste ps to hav e it filed in the proper ty re cords. The onl y dis pute re lat es to th e le g al eff ectof thes e acti ons, w hic h is a ques ti on of law that w e rev iew

de nov o. See Mi

ra nda , 133 S. W .3d a t 226

.10

First, the City

and TxDot a rg ue tha t API/ Paisa no could n ot be good faith p urcha sers for v alu e ag ain st the c lai m of a g o vern m e n tal enti ty bec ause a par

ty may not acq uire a prop erty intere st adverse t o a g overnme nta l entity by the ap plication of

an equitab le d o ct rin e , c it in g Odes sa Tex

. Sher if f’ s Poss e, Inc . v

. Ec tor C ounty, 2 1 5 S

. W

. 3 d 4 5 8 (T e x. App.–E ast lan d 2006, pet. deni ed) , and Cap itol Roa d & Gu n C lubv. Lower C olo . Riv

er Auth. , 622 S.W .2d 887 , 896 (Tex. App. –Au s t in 1 9 8 1 , w rit ref ’d n.r.e. ) ( op. on reh’g). Ode ssa Texas Sh eriff’

s Posse inv olved the creatio n of a “lease b y cond uct,” w hich is w here “a lease m ay be crea ted byw ords or oth er cond uct expressing consen t to the lessee's poss ess ion .” 215 S.W .3d at 465. Cap itol Roa d & Gun Club inv olv ed a cl aim to proper ty by us e of the doct ri nes of li mita ti ons, estoppel , and acq uie sc ence theor y . 622 S. W .2d a t 896. How ev er , th e “ g oo d fai th p urc ha s er for v al ue ” d oc tr i ne i s n otme r el y a n eq uitable doct ri ne—i t i s s tatut or il y manda ted, and no ex cept ion i s made i n the st atute for g ov er nmental enti ti es. See T EX
. P R O P E R T Y C OD E A NN
. § 1 3.01( a)

. In fact , ot her co urts h a ve a p p li e d t h e go o d fa it h p u rc h a s e r fo r va lu e d o c t ri n e a s a ga in s ta go ve rn m e n t a l e n t it y. See als o City of Richl

and Hi ll s v. Ber tel sen , 724 S.W .2d 4 28, 4 30 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 1987, no w ri t)

. Thus, w e reje ct the C it y and Tx Dot ’s arg ument t hat t hey ca nnot be made subje c t t o API/P aisan o’s prope rty interest a s g ood faith p urcha sers for v alue beca use g ov er nmental entiti es are subjec t to the sta tutor il y -i mposed g ood fait h purc haser for v alu e doct ri ne. The q uest ion remains , how ev er , w hether API /Pai sano had ei ther co nst ru cti v e or act ual notic e of

the Ci ty and Tx Dot ’s clai m to t he proper ty i n fee si mple. AP I/Pa is ano doe s notdisput e tha t it had n otice o r actual kno w ledge of both the 20 03 a nd 200 4 Jud gmen ts,11

w hic h w er e fil ed of r ecord. The q uest ion is w hether API/ Pai sano shoul d hav e k now n tha t, after the fact , t he C it y

and Tx Dotw oul d c lai m thatthe 2004 J udg me n t, t o wh ich they ag re ed and w hic h the y ca use d t o b e fil ed, w as v oid

. W e hol d tha t AP I/Pa is ano w as not required to i nquire as to the ef fect or v alidity of the 200 4 Judgm ent and w as ent itled to rely on th e 20 04 Ju dgme nt, f iled in the of f icial property record s. “A purchas er

i s charg ed w it h know led g e of the prov is ion s a nd c ontent s o f rec orded instrum ent s. Purchase rs are also charged w ith no tice of the te rms o f

d e e d s wh ich form
an e sse n t ia l li n k in their chain o f ow nersh ip.” Cookse y v. Sinde r, 682 S.W .2d 2 52, 2 53 (Tex . 198 4) ( per

cu ri am). The c onv erse is lik ew is e true— a party w ho performs a di li g ent
search of the proper

ty records is enti tl ed to re ly on the re ci tati ons in thos e records w hen purch asing prope rty , particu larly a s a gainst the p arty w ho cause s t he recitatio ns to be there in the first pla ce. As the Tex as Supreme C our t ex pla ine d as ear ly

as 1891: Protec ti on i s g iv en to a bona f ide pur chas e r o n the g ro und t hat i t w oul d be unj ustto dep riv e hi m of prop erty w hic h he has pur chas ed from a nother hold ing all the ev iden ces of rig ht ne cessary under the law to show that he is the t ru e ow ner

of the t hin g purchas ed; a nd w h e n a pe rs on nothav ing the enti re benefic ial i nteresti s p er mitt ed by thos e hav ing adv erse int er est s t o hol d the ev ide nces of pe rfect ri g ht in hims elf pr esc ri bed by law fo r the pur pose, among othe rs , of sh ow ing w h o t h e t ru e ow ner i s, then the l aw imput es to t hose hav ing su ch adv erse int er estsome deg re e of neg li g ence, for w hic h the y

oug ht t o s uff er , rather

than thatl oss sh oul d be impos ed on a bona f ide purchas er

f ro m one holdi ng the ev ide nces of co mplet e ow nershi p. Pat ty v. Middle , 82 Tex . 586 , 17 S.W . 909 , 911 ( Tex . 189 1) ; s ee Potka v. Potka , 205 S.W .2d 5 1, 54 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–W aco 1947, w ri t ref’d n. r. e.) ( hol din g that s ubseq uent pur chas er

w as enti tl ed to rel y

on a subseq uent parti ti on judg ment t hat c onfli cte d w it h an
ear li er deed, because the adv erse cl aimant s all ow ed the parti ti on judg ment t o be entered
w it hout ass erti ng thei r ri g hts ). T he 2 004 Judgme nt expressly state s thatit is12

in re pla cementof the “ Judg me n t of Cour t i n Abs ence of Obje cti on” si g ned on June 3, 2003 and lat er re corded as Doc ument Number 1328354, Offici al Rec ords of Hi dal g o County , Texa s. This Ju dg ment N unc Pro Tunc thereby supersedes and makes sa id “J udg m e n t o f Cour t i n Abs ence of Obje cti on” sign ed o n J un e 3, 2 00 3 nu l l a nd v oi d, w i th ou t effec t an d v ac at ed b y this Court. T his Court he reby enters this Jud gmen t Nunc Pro T unc a s the sole final j udg ment of the cas e. The 2004 Judg ment w as si g ned by the Ci ty ’s attor ney s. The 2004 Judg ment, on i ts face, expressly

supe rsede d the 200 3 Jud gm e n t and conta ined all the requisites of a v alid jud g ment. See Slaug hte r v. Qualls , 139 Tex . 340 , 1 6 2 S.W .2d 6 71, 6 75 ( Tex . 194 2) (h old ing that a par

ty w ho purc hased land in go od fait h at from a pe rs on w ho ac q uired th e land a t a foreclosu re sa le acquired good title to th e land ev en th ough th e foreclosu re sale
w as deemed v oid ); Goh lson v. Pe eks , 224 S.W .2d 7 78, 78 2 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–Eas tl and 1949, w ri t ref’d) ( op. o n reh’ g ). N othi ng i n the off ic ial proper ty records w oul d hav e rev eal ed tha t the 200 4 Jud gmen t w as v oid be cause it w as issued outsid e t he trial cou rt’s plenary power, and w e w ill not require partie s to review the cont ent s of the clerk’s f ile in a law suit to w hic h theyare not a par ty and form a leg al opi nio n about the val idi ty of a judg ment t hat appears v ali d on it s face. Cf . M ar ti n v . C adle C o., 133 S. W .3d 8 97, 9 05 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 200 4, pe t. de nied ) ( hold ing purchase rs had not ice tha t foreclosu re w as v oid be cause chain of tit le put t hem on n oti ce)

. Thus, w e hol d tha t AP I/Pa is ano was enti tl ed to rely on t he 2004 J udg ment as g ood fait h purchas ers for v alu e. B. Trespa ss t o Tr

y T it le an d Neg lig ence T x Dot and the City argue tha t API/ Paisa no’s claim is really one for trespa ss to try ti tl e , n o ti n v e rs e c o n d e mn a t i o n , a n d t h e y a r e i mm u n e fro m s u c h a s u i t

. F u rt h e r mo re , Tx Dotand the C it y

arg ue th at t hey

are i mmune from any

neg lige n ce c la ims as ser ted b y API/ Pai sano.13

Fi rs t, w e not e tha t now her e i n API /Pai sano’ s p eti ti on do they as ser t a cl aim for neg li g ence. In fact , the only clai m ra is ed is for inv erse conde mnati on. API/ Pai sano uses the w ord “ neg li g ence” only to ex pla in thei r g ood fait h purchas er for v alu e arg ument—that becau se Tx Dotand the City a llo w ed th e 2004 Judg ment t o be entered, t he l aw req uires that any har m for t hat n eg li g ence shoul d fall on Tx Dotand the C it y . See Patty , 1 7 S

. W. at 91 1 (“[W ]he n a pe rson no t having the entir e b e n e f ic ia l int erest is perm itted bythose hav ing adv erse int er est s to hol d the ev ide nces of pe rfectr ig ht i n hi msel f pres cr ibe d by l aw for th e pur pose, among othe rs , of sh ow ing w ho th e tr ue ow ner is , t hen the l aw im putes to tho se havin g such adverse interest som e deg ree of n e g lig ence , for w hic h the y oug ht t o suffer, rather than that los s shoul d be impos ed on a bona fide pur chas er from one hol din g t h e e v i d e n c e s o f c o mp l e t e o w n e rs h i p
. ” ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )

. A P I / P a i s a n o ’ s c i t a t i o n o f Patt y merel y prov ide s t he th eor eti cal under pin nin g s o f the g ood fait h purch a se r for v alu e doct ri ne; i t doe s n ot c onv ert t hei r cl aim int o a n eg li g ence cl aim. See i d. Seco nd, TxDot and the City’ s argumen t tha t this suit is one for t respa ss to try title is not sup porte d by the law . “[A] takings claim is notthe f unct iona l equiv alen t of a trespa ss to try title claim o r a suit to quie t title.” Por etto v. Patter

son , 2 5 1 S

. W

. 3 d 7 0 1 , 7 0 8 (T e x. App .–Hou ston [1st Dist.] 20 07, no pe t.). Th e reme dy for a n inverse conde mn ation claim is j ustco mpensat ion for t he ta ki ng , w hil e a s u cc e ss f ul trespas s t o tr y ti tl e c lai m r eq uires immedi ate t ra nsfer of poss ess ion of the p ro per ty

. Id. “ [A]lth ough lan d ownership is universally

an un derlyi ng conside ration of a takings claim, legislativ e c o n s e nt is
unn ecessa ry to pursue j ust compe nsat ion ( as opp osed to possession and title) becau se the Tex as and Uni ted S tates C onst it uti ons already g ra nt pr iv ate l andow ners s uch a r ig ht.” Id. I f w e w er e to acc ept Tx Dotand the Ci ty ’s arg ument, no clai mant coul d ev er recov er for14

inv erse conde mnati on i f the g ov er nmental enti ty ch all eng ed th e c la im a nt’ s o w nershi p of the p ro per

ty bec ause, ac cordin g to T xDot and th e C it y , t he c lai mant w oul d be bar re d by the d oct rine of sov er eig n i mmunity from prov ing ow nershi p. City of S unset Val ley, 146 S.W .3d at 644 (“ It is fundamental that , t o recov er under the cons ti tuti onal tak ing s c lau se,
one mustf irst dem onst rate an ownership intere st in the prop erty take n.”). Th at is a result that si mply

ca nnot obtai n. Acc ordin g ly , for al l the for eg oin g reaso ns, w e reje ct Tx Dotand the C it y ’s arg ument and ov er ru le thei r is sue in thi s reg ard. C. Scope of the Ease ment Next, the partie s disput e ownership of t he soil rem oved f rom th e prop erty, w hich is the s ubj ectof API/ Pai sano’ s i nv erse conde mnati on s uit

. The Ci ty and Tx Dotarg ue th at the e asementg ra nted in the 2 004 Judg ment all ow ed them to remov e s oil from t he proper ty and t o k eep i t for thei r ow n use; thus , API/ Pai sano do not hav e any proper ty int er est in the
excav ate d soil. API/ Pai sano conc ede t hat a ny i nterestthey

obtained as good faith p ur chas ers for
v alue is nec es s ar i l y

s ub j ec t to t he e as em en t g r an te d i n th e 20 04 J ud g me nt , w hi ch prov ide s: [The C it y ] i s e nti tl e d t o co ndemn, a nd [d oes] hereby hav e j udg ment against the abo v e na me d Defend antand any other intere sted parties for a ri g ht of w ay

eas ement ov er

thatreal proper

ty des cr ibe d i n Ex hib it"A" and "B" for th e pur pose of openin g , c onstru cti ng and maint ain ing a pe rmane nt chann el or

drain ag e eas ement i n, al ong , upo n and across sa id proper ty togeth er w ith the rig ht an d priv ilege at all t im es of the [City], its ag ent s, em ployees an d represe nta tiv es of ingre s s a n d e gress to an d f rom sa id proper ty for t he pur pose of makin g any i mprov ements , modi ficat io n s or re pai rs w hic h [C it y ] dee ms nec ess ar y . API/ Pai sano further conc ede that pursuant to the easement , Tx Dotand the C it y had the15

ri gh tt o e xc a va t e t h e so il in qu e s t io n b e c a u s e t h e e xc a va t io n wa s “r e a s o n a b ly n e c e s s a ry” for th e c onst ru cti on of the dr ain ag e easement. API /Pai sano arg ue, h ow ev er , t hat o nce the soi l w as ex cav ated, T x Dotand the C it y had “n o r ig hts w hats oev er w it h respec t t o the so il .” W hen c onsi der ing the ter ms of an ex pr ess easement, w e apply basicpr inc ipl es of cont ra ct cons tr uct ion and int er pr etati on. Ma rc us Cab le Ass ocs
. L.P. v. Kr ohn , 90 S.W .3d 697, 700 ( Tex . 200 2)

. The int ent ex pr ess ed i n an easementdete rmi nes the s cope of the
ea s em en t, and u nl es s t he e as em en t’ s l an g ua g e i s a mb i g uo us , w e l oo ks ol el y t o th e te r ms of the w ri tten ins tr ument. Id. at 700- 01. “[ I]f a par ti cul ar pur pose is not prov ide d for in [a] grant , a use pursuing tha t purpo se is not allowed.” Id. at 70 1 ( ci tati ons omit ted) . “ Not hin g pass es by

i mpli cat ion ‘ ex ceptw hat i s reason abl y nec ess ar

y ’ to fair ly

enj oy the r ig hts expressly

g rante d.” Id. An eas ement i s merely “[‘ ]a l ibe rty , pr iv il eg e, or adv antag e i n l and w it hout profit, existing distinct from the ownership of the soil.[’]” F. J. Ha rr

is on & Co. v. Bor

ing & Ken nard , 44 Tex . 255 , 187 5 W L 7685, at *8 ( Tex . 187 5) ( q uoti ng Her man on Est oppel s, sec . 517 ; 3 Kent 's C omm., 565 .)

. [A]n eas ement i s a nonposses sor y interest , thoug h it author iz es it s h old er to use the p ro per

ty fo r a p a rt icul ar

pur pose. W hil e es tabl is hment of an easement , in g eneral ter ms, impl ies a g ra nt of unl imi ted reason abl e us e as is reason abl y

nec ess ar

y and conv e n ient, t he fee ow ner retai ns ti tl e to the lan d and all thati s o rd ina ri ly co nsi dered par

t of thatl and. Br ownlow v

. St ate, 251 S.W .3d 7 56, 7 60-6 1 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2008, pet. gra n te d ) (ci ti n g Ma rc us Cab le Ass ocs ., L.P. , 90 S.W .3d a t 700 ; Colem an v. F or is ter , 514 S.W .2d 899 , 903 (Tex.197 4); Br unson v. Sta te , 418 S.W .2d 5 04, 5 06 ( Tex . 196 7) ). In Br ownlow , t he Brow nlo w s g ra nted the S tate an eas ement t o bui ld a w ater detent ion faci li ty

as par t of the Stat e’s hi g hw ay co nst ru cti on proje ct , descr ibi ng the16

easementas : a pe rm a n e n t e a se m e n t in th e pro p e rt y . . . fo r th e pu rp o se of op e n in g, cons tr uct ing , and mai ntai n in g a dete nti on/mi ti g ati on faci li ty i n, ov er , and across the tractof

land for the pur pose of maki ng addi ti ons to, improv ements on, a nd repai rs to sai d det enti on faci li ty or an p art t her eof. . .

. Id. at 759. T here af

ter, the State began rem oving larg e am oun ts of soil and use d the soil in anothe r sec ti on of the hig hw ay proje ct. Id. The c our

t hel d tha t t he eas ement al low ed the S tate to ex cav ate soi l from the proper ty but did not all ow the Stat e to tak e the soi l and use it for its ow n pu rpose s: W hil e i t may

be “reason abl y

necess ar

y ” for the [S]tat e to dis pla ce the s oil to dig the det ent ion facility , the [S]ta te provided n o test imo ny or othe r ev iden ce tha t it w as reaso nab ly

nece ssaryfor it to ca rt o f f an en ormo us am oun t of soil t o a n o t h e r l o c a t io n n o to wn e d b y t h e B ro wn lo ws a n d u s e itfo r i t s o wn purp oses. This cou rt take s judicial not e tha t in the ma rketpla ce tod ay soil is a v alua ble com mo dity. Havi ng bargaine d only for an e asem ent , the State is not e nti tl ed to ow nershi p of the extract ed s oil

. Id. at 762 ( int er nal ci tati on omi tted)

. As in Br ownlow , the easement her e all ow ed the Ci ty and Tx Dotto ex cav ate s oil to th e exte n t re a so n a b ly ne ce ss a ry to f u lf ill th e pu rp o se of th e ea se m e n t: “op e n in g,
cons tr uct ing and maint ain ing a pe rmane nt c hannel or d ra i n a g e e a s e ment.” The ea sement , how ev er , doe s not g ra nt the Ci ty and Tx Dotti tl e to the s oil thati s remov ed, w hic h remains the p ro per

ty of API/ Pai sano. Id. The C it y

and Tx Dotrely

on C ity o f La G r

an ge v . Br own , 1 6 1 S

. W

. 8 ( T e x. Ci v. App.–A ust in 1913, w ri t ref’d) , and City of San Anto nio v. Mullally , 3 3 S

. W

. 2 5 6 (T e x. Ci v. App.–S an Antoni o 1895, no w ri t) , arg uin g that w hen an easementis g ra nted for hi g hw ay pu r p o s e s , t h e e a s e me n t a l s o a l l o w s t h e re mo v a l o f d i rt o r g r a v e l fro m t h e ro a d , and t he
ease me nt owner may use tha t dirt or gravel to mainta in ano the r street or highw ay. Th ese
c a s e s a re distinguishab le in thatthey deal w ith the remo v al of soil, g rav el, or oth er likeA s p art o ft hei r i ssue, t he Ci t y and T xD ot ar gue t hat i t m ust be pr esum ed t hat t he p r i or owne rs 6 r ecov er ed a l l dam ages t o t he p r oper t y i n t he pr i or condem nat i on pr oceedi ng a nd t hat beca use t he Ci t y has a lr e a d y p a id f o r th e v a lu e o f th e f e e s im p le in te r e s t, a n y r e c o v e r y b y A P I/ P a is a n o w ill b e a “ d o u b le r e c o v e r y” f or t he a cqui si t i on o ft he sam e pi ece of l and. T he C i t y and T xD ot do not expl ai n why API / Pai sano, as good fai t h p urc ha s ers for val ue , ha ve be ne fi t t ed i n an y w ay from the p ay m en t tha t the C i t y m ad e t o W hi t e b efo re t he C i t y agr eed t o t he 2 004 Judgm ent , on whi ch API / Pai sano r el i ed when pur chasi ng t he p r oper t y f r om W hi t e. F u rth e rm o re , t h e C i ty a n d T x D o t d o n o t e x p l a i n h o w th e s e a rg u m e n ts re l a te to th e ju ris d i c ti o n o f th e tri a l c o u rt, whi ch i s al l we m ay re v i ew i n t hi s appeal

. Accor di ngl y , w e decl i ne t o ad dr ess t hem as i nadeq uat el y br i ef ed. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 8 .1 (i). 17 mater ial from abo v e the g ra de l ine of one part of a s treet o r hig hw ay to another

por ti on of that or some other

st re et or hi g hw ay
. See Mull

aly , 33 S. W . at256; La Gr ange, 1 6 1 S

. W. at 10 . The Br

own low cour

t rec og niz ed th at i n La Gr ange , t he St ate c ame i nto “ inc ide ntal poss ess ion ” of small amounts of soil whil e g ra din g the hig hw ay —th e St ate w as not
re mov ing l arg e amount s of soi l and k eepi ng i t w it hout prov idi ng an e x pla nati on for w hy that
w as re asona bly

nec ess ar

y . Br ownlow , 251 S.W .3d a t 762

. W e li k e wis e a gr e e t h a tt h e h ig h wa y-g ra d in g c a s e s a re d is t in g u i s h a b le , a n d we fo ll o w Br ownlow. Id. The C it y

and Tx Dot hav e not prov ide d any ex pla nati on for w hy i t w as
reaso nab ly

nece ssaryfor it to keep the soil it remo v ed f rom th e draina ge ditches. Acc ordin g ly , w e hol d tha t the easement did not author iz e the C it y and Tx Dotto keep the soil it rem oved f rom th e ease me nt, and API/Pa isano have a suf f icient prop erty intere st in that soi l to mai ntai n an act ion for i nv erse conde mnati on. Therefor e, t he C it y and Tx Dotdo nothave sov ereign imm unity, and w e overrule their issue on app eal. 6 IV. C ONCL US I ON Havi ng ov erruled th e City and TxDot’s issue on ap pea l, w e af f irm the trial court’s
order deny ing thei r ple a to the j ur is dic ti on.

________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e Del iv er ed and filed the 26th day of Aug ust , 201 0.18