EXHIBIT B 

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 03/12/2015 4:41:59 PM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
jourtb Court of Rppeat5 

*an Zintonto, Eexao 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

No. 04-14-00584-CV 

IN RE EL CABALLERO RANCH, INC. 

Original Mandamus Proceeding' 

Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice 

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice 

Patricia 0. Alvarez, Justice 

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice 

Delivered and Filed: November 26, 2014 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS CONDITIONALLY GRANTED 

On August 13, 2014, relator El Caballero Ranch, Inc. filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

complaining of the trial court's interlocutory order granting plaintiff, Grace River Ranch, L.L.C., 

the use of and ability to maintain a disputed easement before all of the defendants' claims and 

defenses regarding the easement have been adjudicated. We conclude the trial court abused its 

discretion in permitting immediate access to the disputed easement before the entry of a final 

judgment upon determination of all disputed claims. See In re Elmer, 158 S.W.3d 603, 605 (Tex. 

App.—San Antonio 2005, orig. proceeding) (citing Hood v. Amarillo Nat 'I Bank, 815 S.W.2d 545, 

548 (Tex. 1991)). Accordingly, we conditionally grant mandamus relief. 

This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 13-04-00108-CVL, styled Grace River Ranch, L.L.C. v. El Caballero Ranch, 

Inc. a/k/a El Caballero, LLC and Laredo Marine, L.L.C. v. Robert W. Brittingham, pending in the 218th Judicial 

District Court, La Salle County, Texas, the Honorable Stella Saxon presiding. 

#374227 
04-14-00584-CV 

BACKGROUND 

Grace River Ranch, L.L.C. brought suit against El Caballero Ranch, Inc. in April 2013 

seeking a declaration as to the existence and validity of alleged private and public easements across 

El Caballero's real property located in LaSalle County, and to enjoin interference with Grace 

River's use of those easements. In its answer, El Caballero denied the validity of the claimed 

easements asserting defenses of termination, failure of purpose, and abandonment. 

Grace River filed a motion for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment in July 

2013.2Grace River sought summary judgment that the claimed easements are valid; enjoining 

interference by El Caballero; and denying El Caballero's defenses of termination, impossibility, 

abandonment, and failure of purpose. El Caballero timely responded to the summary judgment 

motion. Days before the summary judgment motion was set to be heard, El Caballero filed an 

amended answer and counterclaim, asserting for the first time an affirmative defense based on 

adverse possession and limitations, and counterclaims for declaratory judgment and seeking to 

quiet title to the disputed property. On the same day, Laredo Marine, L.L.C., owner of the 7C's 

Ranch, another property affected by Grace River's claimed easements, filed a petition in 

intervention. Laredo Marine also denied the validity of the claimed leases on the basis of 

termination, abandonment, and impossibility; asserted affirmative defenses of termination, adverse 

possession, and limitations; and raised counterclaims for declaratory judgment and to quiet title. 

The trial court conducted a hearing on Grace River's summary judgment motion in 

September 2013 and, following extensive briefing by the parties, issued an order granting the 

motion on July 7, 2014. Specifically, the trial court found: 

2Grace River filed a supplement to the motion for summary judgment in August 2013 attaching affidavit and 

documentary evidence of government permits obtained from the General Land Office allowing repairs to a low water 

crossing located along the claimed easement. 

- 2 - 

#374227 
04-14-00584-CV 

GRACE RIVER RANCH, LLC (Grace River) has a valid and subsisting nonexclusive easement across El Caballero Ranch for vehicular and pedestrian access 

to and egress from Grace River Ranch along that part of the Grace River Easement 

lying within El Caballero Ranch, with the right to use and maintain the road thereon 

and any culverts, low water crossings, or bridges lying along the Grace River 

Easement. 

The court also found a valid and subsisting public road across El Caballero Ranch which "has not 

been abandoned or relinquished by La Salle County." The court did not grant any injunctive relief 

against El Caballero. 

After the trial court granted Grace River's motion for partial summary judgment, Grace 

River's counsel requested keys and access codes for the gates located on El Caballero Ranch along 

the easement. When El Caballero refused, Grace River filed a motion for contempt. Both parties 

also sought clarification of the trial court's summary judgment order. 

Following a hearing, the trial court entered its first amended order granting Grace River's 

summary judgment motion. In the amended order, signed August 4, 2014, the trial court granted 

Grace River's motion for partial summary judgment, stating: 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that this Order 

Granting Traditional and No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment of Grace 

River Ranch, LLC (this "Order") is intended to be Interlocutory in nature 

adjudicating only those claims made the subject of the Motion. This Order does not 

adjudicate claims filed by any Party hereto and made after the filing date of the 

Motion. Pending adjudication of these claims, GRACE RIVER shall have the use 

of and ability to maintain the Grace River Easement as specified above. 

Handwritten below the judge's signature line is, "This order is effective August 14, 2014." 

El Caballero filed this petition for writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the portion of the 

trial court's order permitting Grace River's immediate use of and ability to maintain the disputed 

easement before all parties' defenses to the claimed easements have been fully and finally 

determined on the merits. 

- 3 - 

#374227 
04-14-00584-CV 

ANALYSIS 

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court has clearly 

abused its discretion and the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. See Walker v. Packer, 827 

S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992). A failure to correctly analyze or apply the law to the facts of the 

case will constitute an abuse of discretion correctable by mandamus. Id. 

The issue in this mandamus proceeding is not the validity of the trial court's partial 

summary judgment in favor of Grace River. The issue for our determination is whether Grace 

River is entitled to immediate use of and ability to maintain the claimed easement on the basis of 

the partial summary judgment, before all of the claims and defenses regarding the easement have 

been fully litigated and adjudicated by the trial court and, possibly, on appeal. El Caballero 

contends that the trial court's order allowing immediate access to the easement denies its right to 

suspend enforcement of an adverse judgment as provided by the Texas Rules of Civil and 

Appellate Procedure. We agree. 

Generally, a party has the right to suspend enforcement of a judgment pending appeal. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 24.1; see also In re S. Tex. Coll. Of Law, 4 S.W.3d 219, 220 (Tex. 1999). "A 

summary judgment which does not dispose of all parties and issues in the pending suit is 

interlocutory and not appealable unless a severance is ordered." Hood, 815 S.W.2d at 547. Appeal 

from an interlocutory partial summary judgment is available only after the interlocutory order has 

either been severed or merged into a final judgment disposing of the whole case. Id. The party's 

right to supersede a judgment and maintain the status quo while an adverse judgment is on appeal 

may be lost if the trial court allows enforcement of a partial summary judgment before all of the 

parties' claims have been adjudicated and a final judgment has been entered. See In re Tarrant 

Cnty., 16 S.W.3d 914, 919 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, orig. proceeding). 

- 4 - 

#374227 
04-14-00584-CV 

The trial court made it clear that its amended order granting Grace River's motion for 

summary judgment was interlocutory, and additional claims remained to be determined. 

Accordingly, there is no final judgment subject to direct appeal and the procedural tools available 

for suspension of enforcement have not been triggered. See Elmer, 158 S.W.3d at 605. By allowing 

Grace River access to and the ability to maintain the claimed easement before an appealable 

judgment has been entered, the trial court has deprived El Caballero of the right to suspend 

enforcement of the partial summary judgment while obtaining appellate review of the trial court's 

determination regarding the validity of the claimed easements. We conclude the trial court abused 

its discretion by allowing Grace River the ability to use and maintain the claimed easement prior 

to the final determination of all of the parties' claims, and entry of a final and appealable judgment. 

The easements at issue involve a low water crossing spanning a portion of the Nueces River 

which forms the dividing line between the El Caballero and 7 C's ranches. The low water crossing 

was allegedly washed out and became impassable some time in 1998. Grace River has represented 

that it intends to "repair and refurbish" the low water crossing once it obtains access to the 

easement. Grace River contends that it will be able to accomplish this project with limited 

personnel and equipment, creating minimal interference or intrusion upon El Caballero and Laredo 

Marine property. Both El Caballero and Laredo Marine are opposed to Grace River's plan and 

contend it will permanently change the nature and quality of their real property. We conclude that, 

given the nature of the trial court's order, El Caballero lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See 

In re Collins, 172 S.W.3d 287, 298 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, orig. proceeding) (finding 

remedy by appeal from final judgment "wholly inadequate" where a party intends to develop real 

property after trial court abused its discretion in granting motion to void lis pendens); see also 

Canadian Helicopters Ltd v. Wittig, 876 S.W.2d 304, 306 (Tex. 1994) (requirement for inadequate 

remedy by appeal is met where party is in danger of permanently losing substantial right). 

- 5 - 

#374227 
04-14-00584-CV 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, we conditionally grant mandamus relief and direct the trial court 

to vacate that portion of its August 2014 order granting Grace River the ability to use and maintain 

the claimed easements prior to entry of a final judgment. The writ will issue only if we are notified 

the trial court has failed to do as directed within fifteen days from the date of this court's order. 

Karen Angelini, Justice 

- 6 - 

#374227