## NO. 12-07-00222-CV
IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

MILLAR D V AU GH N, § APP EAL FRO

M T HE 2 73 RD APPELLANT
V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF
PAUL DRENNON AND MARY DRENNON, APP ELL EES § SABI NE CO UN TY, T EXAS

MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Mil lard Va ug hn a pp e a ls, fo r the se c on d time , f ro m a pe rm ane nt i nju

nc tio n e nte re d a g a ins t him in a nuisance a ction filed by his ne ighbor s, Paul a nd Mary Dre nnon. Vaug hn raises te n issues attackingthe trial cour

t’s judgme nt. We modify and af firm as modified.

B ACKG ROUND The Dr ennons’ pr operty

share s a common b o u n d ary with Vaug hn’s prope rty . Vaug hn’s proper ty is at a hig her e levati o n , an d he made some cha ng es to the land ne ar the boundary . After finding water

damag e to their prope rty , the Dre nnon s fi l ed suit. I n 2005, the trial cour t entere d a perma nent injunction ag ainst Vaug hn, which he a ppeale d. This court deter

mined that the trial cour

t did not e rr in o rd e ri ngVa

ug hn to a lte r t he slo pe of

his pr op e rt

y to a lle viate the dr a ina g e pr ob le m, but remande d the ca u s e t o t h e t ri al cour t to clarify

just how he was to do so. See V aughn v. Drennon , 202 S.W .3d 308, 316-17 (Te x . App.–Tyler 2006, no pe t.). Upon rema

nd, the trial court held a hear ing at which both sides presente d evidenc e. Thre e months later, the trial c ourt signe d a judg ment g rantingthe Dre nnons’ application for a per manent2

injunction. The trial cour

t ordere d Vaug hn perma

nently restra ined from damag ing or destroying the Dre nnons’ per sonal proper ty or real estate, communicating with them in any manner , and ca

using bodily harm to them. Additionally , the cour t ordere d Vaug hn to corre ct the dra inag e proble m by

f i l l i ng i n t he d i t c h a lo n g P l ai nt i f f s’ f ence l i ne wi t h co ncret e o r ot her perm anent mat er i al , t o bri ng t hi s up t o a l eve l wh er e i t wi l l not s l op e t owar d P l ai nt i f f s ’ f enc e, and i t is fur t her O R D E R E D that D ef end ant M i l l ard V aughn d i g a dit ch al o ng al l t he d i st ance of D ef

end ant ’ s p rop ert y l i ne whi ch ad joins t he p rop ert y o f

P l ai nt i f f s and o t her pro p ert y ow ners , s uch d i t ch t o ext end f rom the cove t o t he m ai n bo d y of t he la k e . T h e d itch to b e d u g is t o ru n p a ra llel to D e fe n d a n t’ s p ro p e rty line a n d is t o begi n f i ve f eet f r om s uch proper t y l i ne and e xt end i nt o D ef endan t ’ s proper t y an ad d i t i o na l f

i ve f ee t , m ak i ng i t a fi ve f

o o t wid e d i t ch wit h a d ep t h o f 1 8 i nc he s.

Va ug hn a pp e a le d th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

W R ON GFUL A CT I nh i s fi rs t , s ec o n d , an d

t h i rdi s s u es , Va u gh nco n t en d s t h e t r i al co urt erre d i ngra n t i n g a perma nent injunction to remedy a situation that no longe r ex ists, there is no evidence of a wrong ful

a c t c a us ingha rm , a nd the re is n o e vid e nc e that th e c ourt -o rd e re d me a sure s w ou ld re me dy any ha rm
. He a lso argues that the wr ong ful conduc t h as b ee n abated and he ha s remedie d the situation. Th e re fo re , h e ma int a ins , th e re is n o s ub sta nti a l and pro bat ive e vid e nc e of any a c tua l ir re pa ra ble inj ur y or any imm ine nt t

hr e a t of ir re pa ra ble ha rm
. Appli cable Law I nju nc tiv e re lie f m ay

be g ra nte d o nly on a sh ow ing o f a

wr on g fu l a c t, i mmi ne nt h arm , irrepa rable injury , and the a

bsence of an a dequate reme dy at law. Id. at 313. A trial c ourt reta ins jurisdiction to review, ope n, v acate, or modify a per manent injunction on a showingof cha ng ed conditions. City of Sa n A n tonio v. Sin gleton , 858 S.W .2d 411, 412 (Tex. 1993) (op. on re h’g ). Thus, t h e t ri al court ha s authority to amend, alter , or dissolve the injunction if either the fac tual situation or the controlling law has c hang ed since its entry

. See Kubal a Pub. Adju sters, Inc. v. U n a u t h o r i z e d P r a c t i c e o f L a w C o mm. , 133 S.W .3d 790, 795 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2004, no pet.). Discussion When we re manded this ca se, we did not inst ruct the tria l court to revie w the mer its of the injunction. I f the viability of the injunction could be attacked on r emand, it would have to be on t he3

ba sis of c ha ng e d c on dit ion s o r l aw. Va ug hn argue s o nly

c ha ng e d c on dit ion s. At the hear ing afte r rema

nd, Mr. Dre nnon testified that, since the April 2005 judgme nt was signe d, Vaug hn had re moved the timbers and done a “bunc h” of le veling , moving the dir t that had been piled up on the timbers. Also, Vaug hn installed a “se al fe nce” to stop erosion. Furthe r, Dre nnon installed a solid metal fenc e on his proper ty that preve nts runoff on his bac k fenc e. L y nn L ov e tt, a re g ist e re d lan d sur

ve y or , did a top og ra

ph ic a l surv e y

of Va ug hn ’s pr op e rt

y in Dec ember

2006 showing wher e the draina g e flows. In response to le ading questions, he ag ree d that the Va ug hn pr op e rt

y c on ta ins the c ro wn

of a hil l w hic h n a tur a lly

slo pe s d ow n to wa

rd the lake in a ll direc tions just as “when God made it.” He sa id the natura l flow of the water would follow that slope. He testified that he saw nothingon the Vaughn proper ty that would deter the natural flow of water. Vaug hn testified that he remove d the timbers and smoothed out the dirt whe re the y had bee n. He e x plained that whe re his prope rty meets the Dre nnons’ proper ty sand is twenty -eig ht inches dee p. I n a n e ff or t to pr e ve nt e ro sio n, he ha d p la c e d a nd re se t a seal fe nc e a

pp ro ximate ly

e ig ht t ime s. Vaug hn ex p lained that he ha d cut up and bur ned some downe d tree s on his property and cle are d

some stumps. He had also permitted ot hers to cut dy ing or damag ed tre es on his proper ty to be used as fire wood. Thus, Vaug hn argues that since he remove d the timbers that he ha d deliberately place d near the Dr e nn on s’ bo un da

ry to f or c e wate r o nto the ir pr op e rt y , the wate r wa s dra ini ng in its natur a l st a te
and the re wa s n o a cti on on

his pa rt to b e e njo ine d. B ut w e , a nd the tr ia l c ourt , a

re e nti tle d to

c onside r t he e vid e nc e fr om t

he 20 05 he ari ng . In a dd iti on to p la c ingthe tim

be rs in a mann e r t o channe l water

direc tly onto the Dre nnon proper

ty , Vaug hn had taken other actions that contributed to the problem. Va

ug hn had re moved a pipe that was in pl ace for dr ainag e at the time he boug ht the proper ty . Vaug hn did not a llow D rennon to ma intain a draina g e ditch he ha d, with permission, dug

on the Vau ghn pro pe rt

y , a nd it f ill e d in . In 2 00 4, Va

ug hn re mov e d tr e e s f

ro m a po rt ion of his proper ty , clea ring out a twenty -five to thirty foot are a fr om the top of t he hil l down t o the Dre nnon proper ty line. All of t hese acts contributed to the drainag e proble m. This is confirmed by L ovett’s statement at the 2007 he aringthat he sawnothing on the V aug hn proper ty that would deter

the natura l flow of water. At the time V aug hn boug ht the proper ty , there wer e pipes, ditche s, and tree s diverting or at lea st slowing down the natural flow of water . Fur

ther, a s neig hbor Ha

rold Crocke r4

explained at t he 2005 hear ing, “[I ]f God fix ed it back, probably it would be the same thi ng it used to be.” But if man fix ed it, “ it c ould be fix ed whe re it could e ither be more water g o[i ng ] away

from [t he Dr ennon prope rty ] or it could be fix ed whe re more water could g o into it.” The re cord suppor

ts a finding that, althoug h there wer e some ch an ged conditions , the Dre nnon proper

ty was still subject to damag ing dr ainag e. On c ross examination, L ovett ag ree d there ha d b e e n tre e s cut do wn , whi c h wou ld spe e d up the fl ow of wate r. Dr e nn on te sti fi e d th a t he wa s st ill havingproblems with water coming onto his proper

ty

. He said that what had been done had c aused more proble ms. Drennon late r cla rified, statingt h at Vaughn was “ still funnelingwater down throug h” the nor

thwest corne r of the f

ence
. A neig hbor, Wil liam T atum, testified that a ditch wa s neede d to stop the water from going acr oss the Drennons’ property and the ditch next t o their fe nce line n e e d e d

to b e f il le d in

. A c c o r d in g ly , th e tr ia l c o urt d id n o t e r r in g r an ti n g th e p erma nent injunction restraining Vaug hn from damag ing or destroying the Dre nnons’ persona l pr operty or re al estate or by order ing him to corr ect the problem by filling in the di tch along the Dre nnons’ fe nce line

an d d i ggi ng a dra inag e ditch on his proper ty

. See V

aug hn , 2 0 2 S

. W

. 3 d

a t3 1 6

. W e o v e rr

ule Va ug hn ’s fi rs t, s e c on d, and

thi rd iss ue s.

RI GHT T O N A TUR A L D RAI NAGE I n his fourth issue, Vaug hn contends the trial court’s injunction infr inge s on his lega l rig ht to have surf

ace water drain naturally

off his prope rty

onto low er estates. He argues that the injunction attempts to preve nt all draina g e onto the Dre nnons’ prope rty in violation of law that states the lower estate is bound to ac cept dr ainag e fr om the highe r estate

. I t is settled law in Texas that “water which natur ally

flows fr o m h i gh er to lowe r land may continue to do so without subjecting the upper owner to a ny liability there for.” Bun ch v. Thom as , 121 Tex. 225, 229, 49 S.W .2d 421, 423 (1932). Howeve r, the lower estate is not require d to rec eive surfa ce water that has been “aug mented or made more bur densome by the ac ts or industry

of man.” Id. at 230, 49 S.W.2d at 423. As explained above, the Vaug hn proper ty is not in i ts natural condition, just as “whe n God made it.” Tree s and underbrush have been r emoved. Ditche s have be en dugand filled in. Va ug hn, in 1996, lowere d the g round level behind the Dre nnons’ proper ty

. In 2004, Vaug hn did more dirt5

work be hind the Dre nnons’ prope rty , built earthen da ms, place d timbers there , and later remove d them, smoothing out the land. Appr ox imately eig ht times, Vaug hn repla ced and reset the s eal f ence , smoothing the dirt down eac h time. Acc ording ly , the water flow onto the Dre nnon proper ty has bee n made more burdensome by the acts of m an. See id. There fore , the Dre nnon proper ty is not bound to acc ept dra inag e fr om the Vaug hn proper ty

. See id. We overrule Vaug hn’s fourth issue.

B R EA D TH O F I NJ UNCT I ON I n his fifth issue, Vaugh n co n t en d s the trial cour t erre d in requiringhim to take corr ective

measure s on parts of his prope rty that had no re lationship to the Dre nnon proper ty , there by

g ranting inj un c tiv e re lie f to neig hb or s w ho we re no t pa rt ie s to thi s c a se . In h is s ixth a nd se ve nth iss ue s, Vaug hn asser

ts the injunction is overly broad be cause it g rants relief beyond that prayed for in the Dre nnons’ petition a

nd beyond what was nece ssary to preve nt any harm to the Dr ennons. He argues there is no evidenc e that a ditch along all boundarie s with a ll neighbor s was re quired to re store the

n a tu r a l f l o w o n t o t h e D r e n n o np r o p e rt y. An injunction should not be so broad as to enjoin a defe ndant from activities that are a lawf ul and proper ex erc ise of hi s rig hts. Holubec v. Brandenberger , 111 S.W .3d 32, 39-40 (Te x . 2003). On the other

hand, an injunction should be broa d enoug h to preve nt a repetition of the evil soug ht to be cor rec ted or stopped. San A nto nio Bar Ass ’n v . Guardia n Abs tra c t & T itl eCo ., 156 Tex. 7, 15, 291 S.W .2d 697, 702 (1956). The re cord shows that there is a c rown of a hill on the Vaug hn proper ty that slope s down toward the lake in all directions. Har old Crocker testified at the 2005 he aring , explaining that he ha d owned pr operty n ea r t he site of this dispute since the e arly seventies a

nd lived there since 1990. Ov er t h e y ea rs h e h adh el p edt h e D re n n o n s , an d n ei ghb o rs o nb o ths i d es o f t h em , wi thth ei r d ra i n age pr ob le ms. Cr oc ke r e xpla ine d th a t th e natur a l flo w of dr a ina g e fr om t he Va ug hn pr op e rt y , w hic h is like a do me , is in f

o u r d if f e r e n t d ir e c ti o n s
. I t f

lo w s to w ar d th e D r e n n o n s ’ p la c e , to w ar d the

n ei ghb o rs o nei t h er

s i d e o f t h e D re n n o n s ’ p l ac e, an d b ac k o nth e V au gh np ro p erty . At th at h ea ri n g, Vaug hn’s brother Earne st V aug hn, who also owns proper ty there , had pointed out that a ditch behind the Dre nnons would divert wate r to the McGe es who live ne x t door, and if the ditch w ere dug down to the McGe es’ pr operty , the wate r would dra in onto the Crocker proper ty

. Vaug hn explained that6

in 1 99 6 o r 1 99 7, at D re nn on ’s re qu e st, he du g a dit c h b e hin d th e Dr e nn on pr op e rt y and tur ne d it so t h e w a t e r w o u l d s t ay o nh i s p r o p e rt y

i n s t e a d o f d r a i n i n g t o th e M c G e e o r

C r o c k e r p r o p e rt i e s
. In 2004, when Va

ug hn first built the earthe n dams behind the Dr ennon prope rty , befor e he added the tim be rs , M c Ge e and

Cr oc ke r b oth

c omp la ine d th a t he ha d c a us e d mo re wate r t

ha n u su a l to dr a in

on to t he ir pr op e rt ie s. Va

ug hn a lso te sti fied that if

he put a dam a g a ins t th e Dr e nn on s’ fe nc e , it

wo uld c a us e wate r t o f

low on to t he Mc Ge e and

Cr oc ke r p ro pe rt ie s. Wade B lackwe ll testified in 2005, explaining that when Vaug hn put the timbers behind the Dre nnon property , it caused dr ainag e proble ms on his property leadingto very

serious septic tank pr ob le ms. Ev e ry

tim e the re wa s a

big ra in, the wate r wo uld ru n o ff Va ug hn ’s pr op e rt

y do wn on to his and the septic tank f

ill li nes would not dr ain. He e x plained that par t of his property

is uphill from Va ug hn ’s pr op e rt

y , b ut p art

is n ot. I n their petition, the Dre nnons asked the c ourt to stop Vaug hn from commit ting a cts that neg ative ly

a f f e c te d th e n a tu r a l d r a in a g e o f

s ur f a c e w a te r
. T h e e v id e n c e s h o w s th a t, d u e to the top og ra ph y of the Va ug hn pr op e rt y and the a dja c e nt t

ra c ts of land , a dd

re ssi ngthe dr a ina g e iss ue in

on e are a a ff e c ts the dr a ina g e in oth e r ar e a s. In that sen se , the c or re c tiv e me a sure s hav e a

re latio ns hip to the Dre nnon proper

ty . The injunction must be broad enoug h to preve nt a re petition of damag ing draina g e proble ms. See id. The trial c ourt would no t b e en titled to order Va ug hn to corre ct the draina g e proble m on the Dre nnon proper ty in a manner

that cre ated a dditional problems for

ne ig hb or ingpr op e rt

y ow ne rs
. Di g g ingthe dit c h o nly a lon g the Va

ug hn/D re nn on

bo un da ry wo uld do j u s t t h at

. Whil e the r ecor d supports the option of digg ing a ditch alongthe Vaughn/Drennon boundary and then takingit into t he Va ug hn proper

t y fo r a d istance on e ach e nd, there is no

re qu ir e me nt t

hat th e tr ia l c ourt

c ho os e that r e me dy

ins te a d o f t

he on e it ord ered. We ov e rr ule Va ug hn ’s fi ft

h, sixth , a nd se ve nth iss ue s.

V A G U EN ESS I n his eig hth issue, Vaug hn contends the injunction is impermissibly vague because it does not adequately

descr ibe the location of t he dit ch and the parties’ proper ty lines. He a

rgues that the order does not descr ibe with particula rity the path and dir ection of the ditch and that the D rennons should have provided a metes a nd bounds descr iption of the proper ties. I n a supplementa l brief,7

Va ug hn a dd s th e argume nt t

hat th e des cri pti on

of the loc a tio n o f t

he dit c h is pr ob le matic be c a us e it requires the ditch “to extend from t he cove to the main body of the lake ” while his prope rty does not border the cove. Orde rs g rantinginjunctions must be specific and de scribe in r easona ble detail the a ct soug ht to be re strained. SeeT EX
. R. C IV
. P. 683. An injunction mus t be def inite, clear , and conc ise, leaving the per son enjoined i n n o d o u b t about his duties, without calling on him for inf ere nces or conclusions about which pe rsons might diff er. See id. Th e inj un c tio n p ro vid e s th a t V a ug hn is o rd e re d to

d ig a d itch a lo n g a ll the d istan c e o f [his] p ro p e rty line w h ic h a d jo ins the p ro p e rty o f [the D re n n o n s] a n d o the r p ro p e rty o w n e rs , su c h d itch to e x te n d fro m th e c o v e to t he m ai n bo d y of t he l ake. T he d i t ch i s t o run p aral l el t o [V aughn’ s] pro p ert y l i ne an d i s t o b eg i n fi ve f ee t f ro m such p ro p er ty line an d ex t en d i nto [V au gh n’s] pr oper t y a n a ddi t i on al f i v e f ee t , ma k i n g i t a f

i v e f oot wi de di t ch wi t h a dept h of 18 i nc he s.

I n support of his ar gument, Vaug hn cites to a c ase involvingidentification of a road “id e n ti f ie d o n Pl a inti f

f ’ s E xh ib it 1 3 f

r o m p o int ‘ A ’ o n F ar

m Ro a d 9 2 to p o int ‘ E ’ to p o int ‘ D’ there on at Farm R oad 92.” See Eastex Wildl ife Conservation Ass oc. v. Jaspe r , 450 S.W .2d 904, 917 (Tex. App.–Be aumont 1970, writ ref ’d n.r.e .). We find Jas

per distinguishable a s it merely ref ers to counsel’s labels on a trial exhibi t. Fur ther, the rec ord in that ca se included no othe r desc ription of the location of the roa d, the survey s upon which it was situated, its width, course, a nd distance,

or other information from which the revie wing court might lear n its location. See id. at 917-18. Her e, the injunction does not re fer to other docume nts. Fur

the r, while Va

ug hn must determine whe re on the g round the bounda ry line is, there is no indication in the re cord that he does not know whe re th e bo un dary lin e is o r t hat th e re is a

ny dis a g re e me nt b e tw e e n h im a nd his ne ig hb or s a

bo ut i ts location. He offe red pictures he had taken of the boundary line, a surve y map showing the boundar y line, and an a eria l photogr aph of his prope rty on which he dr ew in the bounda ry line while o n the wi tne ss s tand . H ow e ve r, our r e vie w o f t he re c or d d isc los e d n o evi dence that V a ug hn ’s pr op e rt

y bo rd e rs wate r o n tw o s ide s. De le tin g the phra se “ su c h d itc h to e xten d f ro m th e c ov e to t

he ma in bo dy of the lake ” wi ll c ur e the pr ob le m. We su sta in i n p art and ov e rr ule in p art

Va ug hn ’s e ig hth issue.8 M IS C EL LA N EO U S P ROH I B I T I ONS I n his ninth issue, Vaug hn asser ts the trial court err ed in enjoining him from communicating with the Dre nnons, causing the Drennons bodily harm, or damag ing the Dre nnons’ per sonal or re al proper ty beca use there is no substantial and probative e vidence t o s u p port these pr ohibitions . He

argue s th e re is n o e vid e nc e tha t he c omm itt e d a

ny tor t w hic h this po rt io n of the inj un c tio n w ou ld p re v en t

. He fu rt h er

ar gu es t h er e i s n o ev i d en ce o f ap re s en ti n t en t i o no r i m m i n en tth re at t o d am age proper ty or ca use bodily

harm. I n his te nth issue, Vaug hn asser ts the injunction prohibiti ng him from

c omm un ic a tin g wi th t

he Dr e nn on s in fr ing e s o n h is l e g a l r ig hts

. As explained above, the evidenc e supports an injunction restrainingVaug hn from dama g ing the Dre nnons’ per sonal or re al prope rty . I n the first appeal of this case , we deleted the term of the court’s or der e njoining Va ug hn from communicating with the Dr ennons bec ause it wa s not supported by

the evidenc e. See V

aug hn , 202 S.W .3d at 320. B eca use the ter

m enjoining Va

ug hn from ca using bodily harm to the Dre nnons was not c halleng ed on appea l, w e aff irmed that term. Id. at 324. The rec ord does not indicate chang ed conditions or law re g ardingcommunicatingwith or causingbodily

harm to the Dr ennons. See Kuba la , 1 33 S.W. 3d a t 79 5. Ac c or din g ly , ag a in w e de le te the injunction a g ainst communicatingwith the Dre nnons and af firm the injunction ag ainst causing bodily harm to the Dre nnons. We sustain Vaug hn’s ninth issue in par t and over rule it in part. Due to our dispositi on of this issue, we need not rea ch Va ug hn’s tenth issue. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1.

C ONCL US I ON Be cause water

dra i n i n g fr o mVau gh n ’s p ro p erty t o th e D re n n o n s ’ p ro p erty i s n o ti ni t s n at u ral

s t a t e , t h e D r e n n o np r o p e rt y i s n o tb o u n d t o a c c e p ti n c r e a s e d

dr a i n a g e f

r o m t h e V a

u g h np r o p e rty. The trial c ourt proper ly

enjoined Va

ug hn from dama g ing the Dre nnons’ per sonal or re al prope rt y a nd causingbodily

harm to the Dr ennons. The tr ial court did not err in orderingVaug hn to fill in t he

ex i s t i n g d i t ch al o n g t h e Dr en n o n s ’ fe n ce l i n e a n d d i g a d i t ch o nh i s p ro p erty t o al l ev i at e adra i n age problem on the Dr ennons’ pr operty

. The corr ective measure s order ed by the trial cour t are neither

ov e rl y br oa d n or va g ue . B e c a

us e the tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d in e njo ini ngVa

ug hn fr om c omm

un ic a tin g wi th the Dre nnons, we de lete that injunction from the judgme nt. We also delete the phrase “such ditch to ext end fr om the cove to the ma in body of the lake .”9

As m odified, we af

fi rm the tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.



### S AM GRI FF I T H J ustice

Opinion delivere d October 31, 2008. Pane l co ns i s t ed of

Wor t hen , C. J. , Gri

f f i t h, J. , an d Hoyl e, J.

(PUBL I SH)