Appel l ees ar e H or ace G r i ff i n, H enr y D

. G i l l , Jam es G i l l , Ei l een Kay e Ri t chi e, R ay m ond Leon R i t chi e, 1 M ar i l y n Regi na Ri t chi e, T i m ot hy Al an Ri t chi e, Lar r y Eugene R i t chi e, and D onal d Lo v el l R i t chi e. 

### NUM BER 13-06- 621- 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 OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
BET TY J. GA RN ER, A pp ellan t,
v . HOR A CE GRIF FIN , ETA L. A pp ellees . On ap pe al f rom th e 2 5th D istrict Co urt of Go nzale s C ou nty , 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 , B en av id es , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z This ca se inv olv es the t it le to an undi v ide d tw o- fifths int er est in a 62.5 acre tractof lan d l ocat ed i n Gon z ale s C ounty ( “t he proper

ty ”)

. Appel lee s broug ht sui t for par ti ti on of 1Appel l ant f i l ed a coun t er - pet i t i on, asser t i ng l i m i t at i ons t i t l e t o t he d i sput ed p r oper t y by adve r se 2 p o s s e s s i o n .

M i t chel l acqu i r ed t he d eeds f r om t hr ee o ft he f i v e he i r s of t he or i gi nal owner , R i char d Jam es, who 3 d i e d i n te s ta te i n 1 9 5 1

. 2 the prope rty

against app ellant , Bett y J. Garner (“ G a rn e r” ). The controlling q uest ion is 2
w het her Garn er estab lished a dve rs e po ssession against app ellees. Follow ing a bench tr ial , t he tr ial co urt re n d e re d j u d gment i n appel lee s’ fav or , findi ng thatappel lee s o w n an u n d ivid e d two-f if

th s in te re stin t h e p ro p e rt y. T h e t ria l co u rts u b se que n tl y issu e d f in d in gs of factand con cl usi ons of law

. By three i ss ues, Gar ner

ch all eng es sev er al of the tr ial
cour t’ s fin din g s o f f actand conc lus ion s o f law

. Spec ific all y , G ar ner co ntends ( 1) the
re c o rd in g o f

a n o il a n d ga s le a s e p ro vid e d su f f ic ie n tn o t ic e o f

r e p u d ia t io n o f

t h e co -t e n a n c y; (2) a statem ent in her fath er’s w ill did not ackno w ledge the co-tena ncy; and (3) app ellees’ pay ment of ha lf the proper ty tax es on the proper

ty —w it hout any

protes t by

Gar ner —di d not
c on s ti tu te a n ad mi s s i on o f t he c o- te na nc y . W e affi r m. Back ground It is undi sput ed th at G ar ner ’s father , D emp M it chel l, ac q u ired an undi v ide d threefifths i nteresti n the proper ty throug h three deed s, each of w hic h c onv ey ed a one- fifth intere st in the p rope rty

. Mitchell a ttem pte d to acquire t he rema ining two-fifths intere st in 3 the prope rty , butw as un able to do so beca use h e cou ld notlocate the two remain ing heirs (“the Jam es he irs”)

. It is a lso und ispute d tha t f rom 195 6 (w hen Mitche ll acquired the t hree -f if ths inte rest in the proper

ty ) unti l his death in 1989, Mi tch ell fenced the enti re 62.5 acres a n d rai sed li v est ock on i t. H e also ex ecut ed tw o oil and g as leas es cov er ing the enti re proper ty : one3

on M ar ch 31, 1965, for a pr imar y ter m of f iv e y ears, and a sec ond, on F ebr uar y 8, 1980, for a pr imar

y ter m of thr ee y ears. Gar ner i nher it ed M it chel l’ s i nteresti n the proper ty w hen he di ed i n 1989. Gar ner tes ti fied th at fro m 1989 unti l the ti me of t ri al, she bel iev ed she had pai d the tax e s o n the enti re proper ty

. Nor ma Jea n D uBos e, t ax as ses sor-c oll ect or

for G onz ale s Cou nty , t est ified thatGar ner pai d the tax es for the e nti re proper ty from 199 0 throug h 2001. How ev er , for the p er iod from 200 2 throug h 2005, Garner paid tax es on an undi v ide d onehalf interest in th e prop erty and the Jam es heirs paid taxes on the rem aining half-interest in the p ro per

ty

. John Liford, an apprais er w it h the Go n zale s Cou nty Apprais al Di str ic t, tes ti fied th at i n 2002, the James hei rs r eq uest ed th at t he apprais al dis tr ic t ( 1) ch ang e the dis tr ic t’ s records to reflectthatGar ner and the J ames h eirs each ow ned an undi v ide d onehal f i n te re st in the p ro per

ty , and ( 2) se par atel y

tax eac h one- hal f interest

. Acc ordin g to Liford, th e district sent not ice to Garner tha t she w as bein g taxed on an un divi ded one -half int er esti n the proper

ty

. Gar ner

testi fied that she w as unaw ar e tha t for 2002 t hroug h 2005, she w as onl y pay ing tax es on a hal f-in teresti n the proper ty

. Gar ner

tes ti fied s he di d not receive notice f rom th e ap praisal district tha t s h e wa s being taxed only for a on e-ha lf int er esti n the proper

ty

. Gar ner , w ho has li v ed in New Y or k si nce 1967, lea ses the proper ty to her brother for agri cultura l use. No one resides on the pro perty. Garne r arg ues th at she and Mitchell (h e r pr e d e ce ss o r-in -intere st)ac q uired th e ent ire pro p e rt y by ad vers e po ss e ss io n . A lt h o u gh Gar ner ac know led g es that a c o- tenanc y onc e ex is ted b etw een M it chel l and t he tw o J ames heirs, she argues that the co-ten ancy w as repu diate d by (1) Mitchell’s thirty- three -y ear use of the proper

ty , c ombine d w it h her

us e of the proper

ty for a n addi ti onal tw elv e y ears, w it hA n d e rs o n v . C i ty o f S e v e n P o in ts , 8 0 6 S .W .2 d 7 9 1 , 7 9 4 (T e x . 1 9 9 1 ). 4 O rti z v. Jone s , 9 1 7 S .W .2 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 2 (T e x . 1 9 9 6 ); Ander son , 8 0 6 S .W .2 d a t 7 9 4

. 5
M cG al liard v. Kuhlm ann, 72 2 S

. W

. 2d 69 4, 69 6 (T ex . 19 86 ). 6 See i d. ; s e e a ls o D o w C h e m . C o . v . F r a n c is , 46 S. W

. 3d 2 37, 241 ( T ex. 200 1) ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he 7

“ m at t er of

l aw” l egal
- suff i ci ency st andar d appl i es when adv er se f i ndi ngs ar e chal l enged by a par t y w ho, f or th e fi n d i n g i n i s s u e , h a d t h e b u r d e n o f p ro o f) ; C roucher v. C roucher , 660 S. W

. 2d 5 5, 58 ( T ex. 198 3) ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he “ no ev i dence” l egal
- suff i ci ency st andar d appl i es when an a dv er se f i ndi ng i s chal l enged by an ap pe l l an t w ho di d n ot ha ve t he bu rde n o f proo f f or t he fi nd i ng ).

D e Ar rel l ano v. St at e Far

m Fire & C as. C o. , 1 9 1 S .W .3 d 8 5 2 , 8 5 5 ( T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 8 2006, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng Zagor ski v. Zagor

ski , 1 1 6 S .W .3 d 3 0 9 , 3 1 9 ( T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 3 , p e t. de ni ed ))

. 4 no claim asserted bythe co-te nan ts, and (2) Mitchell’s execution and recording of tw o oil and g as lea ses on t he proper ty

. S t a n d a r d o f

R e v i e w a n d A p p l i c a b l e L a w In an app eal f rom a ben ch trial, the trial court's fin dings of fact “have the same force and dignity

as a jury 's v erdict up on quest ions.” The trial court's fin dings of fac t are 4
r ev i ew ab l e for

l eg al a nd fac tu al s uffi c i en c y o f t he ev i de nc e to s up po rt th em by th e s am e stan dard s thatare app lied in rev iew ing ev iden ce sup portin g a ju ry' s answer. 5 Uncha llenged f indings of fact are b inding on an app ellate court un less the contrary i s est abl is hed as a “ matter of law ” or

there i s “ no ev ide nce” to suppo rtthe findi ng . O ur 6
re v iew of uncha ll eng ed findi ng s is confine d to w hether the ev ide nce is leg all y suffici ent t o su p p o rtth e m . Ge n e ra lly, a tt a ck s o n th e su f f ici e n cy of th e e vide n ce su p p o rt in g f in d in gs 7 of fact “mu st be direct ed a t specif ic fin dings o f f a c t , rather tha n at th e judgme nt as a
w hol e.” 8 Evi den ce is legally

suf f icient if it “w ould e nab le reaso nab le and f air-mind ed p eop leC i t y of Kell er v. W i lson , 1 6 8 S .W .3 d 8 0 2 , 8 2 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 ). 9
K rog er T ex . L td . P 's h i p v . S ub eru , 216 S. W

. 3d 7 88, 793 ( T ex. 200 6) ( ci t i ng C i t y of Kell er , 168 10 S .W .3 d a t 8 2 7 ); see Am

. I nt er st at e I ns. C o. v. H inson , 1 7 2 S .W .3 d 1 0 8 , 1 1 4 (T e x . A p p .– B e a u m o n t 2 0 0 5 , p e t. d e n i e d ). M c G alliard , 7 2 2 S .W .2 d a t 6 9 7 ; see Ci t y of Kell er , 168 S. W

. 3d a t 819

. 11 See D ow C hem

. C o. , 4 6 S .W .3 d a t 2 4 2

. 12 C i ti z ens Nat ’

l Bank v. C i t

y of R hom e , 20 1 S

. W

. 3d 25 4, 25 6 ( T ex . A pp . –F ort W ort h 2 00 6, no pe t

. ). 13
BM C Sof

t w are Bel

g. , N

. V. v. Marchand , 83 S

. W

. 3d 78 9, 79 4 (T ex . 20 02 ); T e x . D e p t. o f P u b . S a fe ty 14 v. St ockt on , 5 3 S .W .3 d 4 2 1 , 4 2 3 (T e x . A p p .– S a n A n to n i o 2 0 0 1 , p e t. d e n i e d ).

St at e v. H eal , 91 7 S

. W

. 2d 6, 9 (T ex . 19 96 ). 15 St ockt on , 5 3 S .W .3 d a t 4 2 3

. 16 5 t o re a c h t h e ve rd ic tu n d e r r e vie w. ” In e va lu a t i n g t h e e vid e n c e ' s le ga l s u f f ic ie n c y, “we 9 credit evidence thatsupp orts the v erdict if reason able jurors cou ld, and d isregard contrary
ev ide n ce u n le ss r eason abl e j urors c oul d not .” I n addi ti on, t he tr ial co urt as fact fin der 10 d e t e r m i n e s t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e w i t n e s s e s a n d t h e w e i g h tt o b e g i v e n t h e i r t e s t i m o n y . W e

11
w il l not d is tur b a fin din g for fact ual i nsuffici ency un le ss the ev ide nce in suppo rtof the f inding is so against the great weig ht and p repo nde rance o f t he evidence tha t it is cl early
w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust

. 12 A par ty may not chal len ge co n clu sions of law for fact ual su ff ic ien cy , butw e may rev iew conclusio ns of

la w t o det ermin e the ir correctn ess base d upo n the f acts. W e w ill 13 uphol d a c oncl usi on of l aw i f the j udg ment c an be suppo rt ed on any l eg al theor

y su ppor ted by the ev ide nce. W e rev iew concl usi ons of law

de nov o, and w e w il l not rev erse them 14 15
u n le s s t h e y a re e rr o n e o u s a s a m a t t e r o f la w. 16 A d ve rs e p o s s e s s io n is “a n a c t u a l a n d vis ib le a p p ro p ri a t io n o f re a l p ro p e rt y,T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 6 .0 2 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 2 ). 17
Id

. § 1 6 .0 2 6 (a ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 2 ). 18
Am ador

v. Ber rospe , 96 1 S

. W

. 2d 20 5, 20 8 (T ex . A pp . –H ou s t on [ 1s t D i s t

. ] 19 96 , w ri t de ni ed ). 19
King R anch, I nc. v. C hapm an , 118 S. W

. 3d 7 42, 756 ( T ex. 200 3) ( ci t i ng Todd v. Br uner , 365 S. W

. 2d 20 1 5 5 , 1 5 6 (T e x . 1 9 6 3 )) ; Yorkv. F l ow ers , 8 7 2 S .W .2 d 1 3 , 1 5 (T e x . A p p .– S a n A n to n i o 1 9 9 4 , w rit d e n i e d ).

S e b e s ta v . D a n ie ls , 812 S. W

. 2d 6 41, 645 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 14t h D i st

. ] 1991, wr i t deni ed) ( ci t i ng 21 Todd , 3 6 5 S .W .2 d a t 1 6 0 ).

N at ur al G as Pi peline o f

Am

. v. Pool , 12 4 S

. W

. 3d 18 8, 19 4 (T ex . 20 03 ). 22
L o e ffl e r v . L y tl e In d e p . S c h . D is t. , 211 S. W

. 3d 3 31, 341 ( T ex. App. –San Ant oni o 20 06, pet

. den i ed) 23 ( ci t i ng N at ur

al G as Pi peline , 12 4 S

. W

. 3d at 19 4) (em ph as i s i n o ri gi na l ). 6 commenc ed and cont inu ed under a c lai m of ri g ht t hat i s i ncons is tent w it h and is hos ti le to the claim o f

a n o t h e r p erson .” Under the te n-y ear limita tion sta tute , the claiman t mu st 17 hold t he real prop erty in adverse posse ssion and cu ltiv ate , use, or enjoy i t for ten o r more cont inu ous y ears. The cl aimantm ustestabl is h ev er y f actnecess ar

y to the c lai m by

cl ear 18 and c onv inc ing ev ide nce. 19 A co-ten ant m ay no t adversely p ossess a gainst ano the r cotena nt un less it clearly app ears he has repudia ted the title of his cote nan t and is holding adversely to it. Notice 20 of repud iat ion mustbe c lea r, uneq uiv ocal , and unmistak abl e. Act ual notic e of r epudi ati on 21 is not re q uired; rather , not ic e of r epudi ati on may be c o n str uct iv e or

i nferr ed. 22 “C onst ru cti v e notic e w il l be pres umed w her e the adv erse occ upanc y and cl aim of tit le has been long conti nued, open, notor iou s, ex cl usi v e, an d inc onsi ste nt w ith the ex istence of title in o th e rs. ” The s upr eme co urt has ex pla ine d the ch ar act er of ev ide nce neces sar

y to 23 show constructive notice of repud iation to the record owner: In order to make t he pl ea of

limi tati on effectual i n s uch cas e, he mustsh ow some notor iou s act of ow nershi p ov er the proper ty , dis ti nct ly host ile to theN at ur al G as Pi

peline , 124 S. W

. 3d a t 196 ( ci t i ng Kill ough v. H inds , 161 T ex. 178, 338 S. W

. 2d 2 07 24 ( T ex 19 60) ( quot i ng Evans v. Tem pl et on , 69 T ex . 37 5, 6 S

. W

. 84 3 (T ex . 18 87 )) ).

La. Pac. C or

p. v. H olm es , 9 4 S .W .3 d 8 3 4 , 8 3 8 (T e x . A p p .– S a n A n to n i o 2 0 0 2 , p e t. d e n i e d ). 25
King Ranch, I nc. , 1 1 8 S .W .3 d a t 7 5 6

. 26 7 cl aim of the g ra ntee; and the adv erse poss ess ion after this mustco nti nue for a s uff ic ien t l eng th of ti me before sui t t o c omplet e the st a tu to ry b a r. The “posse ssion m ust not o nly be a ctua l, but also v isible, con tinuo us, no toriou s, dis ti nctand host il e, and of such a cha ra cte r as to i ndi cat e unmi sta kabl y an ass erti on of cl aim of ex cl usi v e ow nershi p i n the oc cupan t.” 24 In deter mini ng w hether posses si on of

the cl aimed la nd i s e x cl usi v e, al l ev ide nce must be consid ered

. W hile repu diatio n is of t e n a fact questio n, w hen the pe rtinen t facts are 25
u n d is p u t e d , re p u d ia t io n m a y b e e s t a b li s h e d a s a m a t t e r o f la w. 26 A nal ysis T he trial cou rt issued f indings of fact an d con clusions o f law as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A chain of

title exi sts on th e subject tract through w hich th e Plaint if fs claim an i nterest

. The source of t he int er est of t he Pl ain ti ffs is Ri chard J ames w ho re cei v ed ti tl e to the s ubj ecttractb y d eed dat ed Sep tember 19, 1906, e xe c u te d by Ja ckJa m e s t o Rich a rd Ja m e s, rec o rd e d in Vo lu m e 78 , P a ge 623, Gonz ale s C ounty

D eed R ecords. Ri chard James die d int est ate i n 1951. T he Pla intif

fs are heirs and desce nda nts of Richard Jam es. 2. The Pl a in tiffs a nd th e defendant ar e c o- tenant s i n fee si mple in the subj ecttract

. The De fendant’s fa th e r, D emp M it chel l, pur chas ed an und iv ided com bine d 3/5 th i nte rest in the subje ct tract from three of the he irs of Ri chard James

. The Pl ain ti ffs acq uired by inh er it ance an undi v ide d 2/5 th int er esti n fee si mple in the s ubj ecttract

. 3. T he Defend ant acquired her inte rest in the subjecttract throu gh the last w il l and t est ament of her father , D emp M it chel l, w ho di ed on Ma rc h 28, 1989. T he wi ll of

Demp Mitchell, [sic] w as executed on February 13, 197 3. T he last w il l and t est ament of D emp M it chel l w as filed for p ro bate in Gonz ale s Cou nty , Texa s, on Jul y 6, 1989, in Ca use No. 7773 of the Probate Cou rtof Gonz ale s C ounty

. The ter ms of the w il l sta te that Demp Mi tch ell ow ned anG ibs on v. B urk ha rt , 6 5 0 S .W .2 d 1 8 5 , 1 8 8 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 1 9 8 3 , w rit re f’d n .r.e .). 27 8 undi v ide d i nteresti n the su bje ct tract , thus ack now led g ing that he w as a c ote na nt

. Th e te r ms o f t he w i l l c on c ur w i th t he i nt erest conveye d to D em p Mi tch ell by

three o f the hei rs of Ri chard James, in w hic h each of the three deeds to Demp Mit ch e ll conv ey s o f an [s ic ] und iv ide d 1/5 th i nteresti n the subj ecttract

. 4. T he te stimo ny of

the T ax Assesso r-Collector of Gon z ales C oun ty, T exas, and an apprais er

of the G onz ale s C ounty Apprais al Off ic e sh ow s t hat t he Pl ain ti ffs p aid , for sev er al y ear s, t h e a d v alo re m tax es on th e undi v ide d int er estow ned by

the Pl ain ti ffs in the subj ecttrac t. T her e w as no protes t or obj ect ion m ade t o the tax ing ag enci es by the Defendantto the p ay ment of taxes bythe Pla intif

fs, thu s ackno w ledging, by the Def end ant , the co-tena ncy re lat ion shi p betw een t he Pl ain ti ff and Defendant

. CO NC LUS ION S OF LAW 1. The ex ecut ion of an Oi l and G a s L e a se bya c o- tenanti s n ot s uff ic ien t not ice to an oth er co -tena nt of t he inten t of

t he signatory to atte mp t to m atu re a l imi tati on ti tl e. 2. Th e re w as not s uff ic ien t ev ide nce to s how an o ust er

by the Defendant ag ain st the P lai nti ff

to re mov e the Pl ain ti ff from t he s ubj ecttract

. 3. T h e acts of the D efendant di d notsa ti sfyor meet the b urden of a c otenantto matur e a l imi tati on ti tl e ag ain st a fell ow co -t enant. 4. No suffici ent n oti ce w as g iv en by a co- tenant to pu t on noti ce another co tenantof the i ntentto matur e a l imi tati on ti tl e. By her first is sue, Gar ner

ch all eng es the t ri al cour t’ s firs t conc lus ion of l aw . Gar ner ass erts that the recordin g of an oi l and g as leas e is suff ic ien t notic e to a c o- tenantof the
re pudi ati on of the co- tenanc y . W e di sag re e. Gar ner r eli es on a sta tement in thi s C our t’ s o pin ion i n Gibson v. Burkhart , in w hich
w e state d, “[t]he e x ecut ion of a n oil a nd gas lease an d placin g it of record has b een held to be su ff ic ien t not ic e of an adv erse cl aim to a co- tenant .” I n Gi bson , t his C our

t found 27 that the recordin g of an oi l and g as lea se by the appel lan ts/ co- tenant s w as ins uff ic ien tId

. at 188
- 89. 28 St ockt on , 53 S. W

. 3d a t 423

. 29 9 noti ce of an adv erse cl aim ag ain st the a ppel lee s b ecaus e the appe ll ants ’ fraud ha d prevente d the app ellees f rom lea rning of their intere st in the p rope rty

. Alth ough th ere is 28
no ev ide nce of f ra ud by M it chel l or

Gar ner i n the pr esent cas e, w e conc lud e tha t nei ther oil and g as lea se re li ed on by Gar ner i s s uff ic ie n t n o ti ce to appel lee s o f an atte mpt to
ma ture a limita tion title beca use n eith e r le a s e p urpo rts to assert m ore tha n Mitchell’s undi v ide d i nterest

i n the proper

ty

. Both the 1 965 and the 1980 oi l and g as lea ses r efer t o th e 6 2 .5 a cre t ra ct as “d esc ri bed i n a d eed dat ed M ar ch 21, 1 956” from O la W ard to De m p M it chel l. The atta ched 195 6 de ed c o nvey s “an und iv ided one -f if th inte rest” in the prop erty to Mitchell. Beca use nei ther

the 1965 no r the 1 980 oi l and g as lea se pur por ts to as ser

t more tha n Mi tch ell ’s undi v ide d i nteresti n the proper ty, nei ther

l ease coul d hav e prov ide d s uff ic ien t not ice of his attem pt to mat ure a limita tion title. W e w ill not rev erse the trial court’s conclu sions of

law u nless th ey are errone ous a s a ma tter of law

. W e overrule Garner’s 29 firs t i ss ue. By her se cond is sue, Gar ner

ch all eng es a por

ti on of t he tr ial cour

t’ s thi rd findi ng of fact, w hic h s tates i n rele v ant p art t hat “ [t] he te rms of [D emp M it chel l’ s] w il l sta te t hat [ he]
ow ned an undi v ide d i nteresti n the su bje ct tract , t hus ack now led g ing that h e wa s a co tenant .” Ac cordin g to Gar ner , t he s tatementi n M it chel l’ s w il l w as “a mbig uous” and did not const itute an a dm ission of co-tena ncy. Garne r also argues thatev en if the sta tem ent in the w il l ack now led g ed c o- tenanc y , t he c o- tenanc y w as re pudi ated in 1980 w it h theW e no t e t hat we ha v e al r eady det er m i ned t hat t he198 0 oi l and gas l ease r ef er r ed o nl y t o t he d eed 30 conv ey i ng a n “ undi v i ded one- f i f t h i nt er est ” t o D em p M i t chel l

. T hus, we r ej ect G ar ner ’ s ar gum ent t hat t he 1 980 o il a n d g a s le a s e c o n s tit u te d a r e p u d ia tio n o fth e c o - te n a n c y.

Em phasi s add ed. 31 See C i t

y of Kel l er , 168 S. W

. 3d a t 827

. 32 See D ow C hem

. C o. , 46 S. W

. 3d a t 242

. 33 10 re cordin g of the o il and g as lea se “w hic h c ov er ed th e ent ire proper ty i n q uest ion .” 30 “I tem F our

th” of Demp Mit chel l’ s w il l dev is es to Garn er “al l of the real es tate ow ned by [D emp or Lesl ie Mi tch ell ] ot her than the afores aid l and herein abov e dev is ed to our so n Benard Mit chel l, includ ing but not l

im ited toal

l of ou r undi vided i

nter est i n and to [the subje ct p rope rty ].” Accordin g to Ga rner, the state me nt “includin g but not limite d to” is 31 “a mbig uous” and arg uabl y enc ompass es “b oth t he undi v ide d i nterestow ned by deed and the rema ining interest claim ed b y adverse posse ssion.” Here, the ev iden ce sup portin g the trial court’s f inding tha t the w ill’s referen ce to “all of our undi v ide d i nterest ” ack now led g es Mi tch ell ’s co- tenanc y is si mply the lan g uag e of the
w il l it sel f. There i s n o “c ontrar y ev ide nce” off er ed by

Gar ner ; s he offers onl y her arg ument and interpret ation thatth e wi ll’s langua ge is “amb iguous.” W e con clude the evidence
wou ld e n a ble r eason abl e and fair-mi nded pe opl e to re ach the fin din g made by the tr ial
cour t. W e therefor e hold that the ev ide nce is leg all y su ff ic ien t t o s uppor

t t he c hal len g ed 32 f inding of

fact. Moreover, w e ho ld tha t the t rial cou rt’s cha llenged f inding is not so against the g reat weig ht an d prep ond eran ce of the evidence tha t it is clearly w rong and m anif estly unj ust

. W e ov er ru le Gar ner ’s se cond is sue.

33 By her third issue , Garne r challenges the t rial cou rt’s fourth f inding of fact, b y w hichG ar ner ar gues t hat whet her she r ecei v ed n ot i ce of appel l ees’ pay m ent oft axes o n t he p r oper t y af t er 34 2002 i s a “ m oot poi nt ” beca use sh e ha d acq ui r ed l i m i t at i ons t i t l e t o t he p r oper t y by 199 0. As di scussed ear l i er, w e ha ve rej ect ed G ar ner ’ s ar gum ent t hat t he e xecut i on o ft he 1 980 oi l and gas l ease const i t ut ed a r e p u d ia tio n o fth e c o - te n a n c y.

See C i t y of Kel l er , 1 6 8 S .W .3 d a t 8 1 9 ; M c G alliard , 7 2 2 S .W .2 d a t 6 9 7

. 35 See C i t

y of Kel l er , 168 S. W

. 3d a t 827

. 36 11 the c our t found t hat G ar ner ’s fail ur e to obj ectto appel lee s’ pay ment of ad v alo re m tax es on th eir undi v ide d i nteresti n the proper ty for s ev er al y ears c onst it uted an ac know led g ment by Gar ner of the co- tenanc y re lat ion shi p w it h appel lee s. Gar ner als o arg ues that the 2 002 pay ment of tax es by

appel lee s h ad no eff ectbec ause the t en- y ear st atut e o f li mita ti ons beg an to r un i n 1980, w hen t he c o- tenanc y w as re pudi ated by

the ex ecut ion of the 1 980 oil and g as lea se, and li mita ti ons had t her efore r un by 1990. 34 As noted, tes ti mony

at tr ial es tabl is hed t hat (1 ) in 2002, the a ppr ais al dis tr ic t s ent
n o t ic e t o G a rn e r t h a tsh e wa s b e in g t a xe d o n a n u n d ivi d e d o n e -h a lf in t e re s t in t h e p ro p e rt y; (2 ) the d is tr ic t recei v ed no obj ect ion or prote st from Gar ner ; and ( 3) Gar ner tes ti fied s he did no t receive notice an d w as un aware that she w as be ing t a xe d f or a one -half interest in t h e p ro p e rt y. As fact finder , the tr ial cour t deter mined the w it ness es’ credi bil it y and t he w eig ht t o be g iv en to thei r tes ti mony . The t ri al cour t coul d hav e reje cte d Gar ner ’s tes ti mony that 35 she did not re cei v e notic e and w as unaw ar e that af ter 2002, she w as pay ing tax es on an und iv ided one -half

interest in th e prop erty. W e con clude the evidence w ould ena ble
r e a s o n a b l e a n d fa i r- m i n d e d p e o p l e t o r e a c h t h e f i n d i n g m a d e b y t h e t r i a l c o u rt

. W e 36 therefore ho ld that the e v ide nce is l eg all y su ff ic ien t t o s u p p o rt the ch all eng ed findi ng of fact. Mo re ov er , w e hol d that the tr ial cour t’ s chal len g ed findi ng is not so ag ain st the g re atSee D ow C hem

. C o. , 46 S. W

. 3d a t 242

. 37 12 w eig ht an d preponderance of the ev ide nce that iti s c lea rl y w ro ng and manifest ly

unj ust

. 37 W e ov er ru le Gar ner ’s thi rd i ss ue. Conclusion W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e

Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 29t h day

of Janua ry , 200 9.