1 ... S ee T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2 - 06 - 29 4- CV
T H E U N K N O W N S T O C K H O L D E R S AP P E L L A NTS OFT HE K . M . VA N Z AND T L AND COMP ANYAN D T HE UN K NOW N HE I R S , S UC CE S S OR S , AN D AS S I GNS OFT HE UN K NOW N S T O C K H O L D E R S O FT H E K .M . VAN ZANDTL AND COM P ANY AND E DMUND P . CR ANZ AN D NE I LL . VA N Z AND T V . W H I TEH EA D EQ U I TI ES, JV. ; A PPELL EES J A G E E R E A LP R O P E R T IE S , L .P .; G A R V IE W P A R T N E R S , L .P .; S P O K A N E V E N T U R E S , L T D ., I N C .; N O N A , I N C .; W IL LE D W A D L E Y ; AND F P A F OUN DAT I ON

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 67TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 12 ----- ----- -- A ppe l l ant s, t he unk now n s t o c k h o l der s oft he K. M . V an ZandtLa nd C om pan y ( “t he La nd Com pan y” ) an d t he unk now n he i r s, s ucc es so r s, an d
as si gns oft he unk now n s t ock hol der s ( “t he U nkn ow n Hei r s” ) , an d Edm und P. C ra n z a n d N e i l L . V a n Z a n d t (“ th e C ra n z A p p e l l a n ts ” ), c h a l l e n g e th e s u m m a ry j udg m entgr ant ed f orA ppel l ees W hi t ehead Eq ui t i es, JV . ; Jagee R eal Pr opert i es, L. P. ; G arvi ew Part ner s, L. V . ; Spoka ne V ent ur es , Lt d. , I nc. ; N ona , I nc. ; W i l l Ed W adl ey; an d FPA Founda t i on. I n one br oad i ss ue, t he U nkn ow n H ei r s con t end t hatt he t r i al co urter r ed by g r ant i ng s um m ary j udgm entf orA ppe l l ee s . The C r anzA ppe l l ant s br i ng t w o i ss ues , ar gui ng t hat t he t r i al cou rt er r ed by g r ant i ng
sum m ar y j udg m ent and by gr ant i ng A ppel l ees’ per em pt or y m ot i on t o s tr i ke A p p e l l a n ts ’ re q u e s t fo r c l a s s c e rti fi c a ti o n . B e c a u s e w e h o l d th a t th e tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t e rr b yg ra n ti n g s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t, w e a ffir m . I. F ACTS AND P RO CEDU RA L H I STORY I n t he ear l y partoft he t w ent i et h cent ur y, t he Land C om pany d edi cat ed
s e v e ra l a d d i ti o n s , d i v i d e d i n to l o ts , a ro u n d th e W e s t S e v e n th S tre e t a re a o f F o rt W ort h ( “th e s u bdi vi si ons ”) an d c onve yed t he r ea l pr ope rt y un derde eds
con t ai ni ng r es t r i ct i onsag ai ns t , am ong o t her t hi ngs , t he sa l e o fal coh ol on t he
c o n v e y e d p ro p e rty(“t h e V a n Z a n d t d e e d s ” ). T h e re s tri c ti o n s s ta te , Thi s con vey anc e i s how eve rm adeupon th e fol l ow i ng c ondi t i on a n d lim it a t io n s : T h a t i f . . . i n t o x ic a t in g liq u o rs h a ll e v e rb e s o ld3

upo n sai d pr em i ses orany part t her eof , t hen . . . t he sai d pr em i ses her ebyco nve yed s hal l t her eup on i m m edi at el y r eve rt t o t he gr ant or her ei n and i t s l egal r epr esent at i ves, and t he est at e her eby gr ant ed shal l t her eupo n t er m i nat e. Th e L a nd Com pa nyf or m a l l y di s s ol ve d i n 1947. A ppel l ees ow n t r act s ofl and i n For t W ort h t hat w er e convey ed t o t hem b yd e e d s c o n ta i n i n g th e s e p ro v i s i o n s . A p p e l l e e s fi l e d s u i t s e e k i n g a d e c l a ra to ry j u d g m e n t t h a t th e res tr i c ti o n s i n th e d e e d s a re i n v a l i d a n d u n e n fo rce a b l e a n d to hav e t he t r i al co urtr em ove t he enc um br anc e f r om t he t i t l e t o t he pr ope rt y. P r io rt o t h e in s t a n ts u it , s o m e o t h e r p r o p e rt y o w n e r s in t h e s a m e a r e a w h o h e ld l and unde rde edsf r om t he La nd C om pan y w i t h t hes e r es t r i ct i onsha d br ought sui tagai nst th e c o r por at i on, i t s di r ect or s, ori t s unknow n shar ehol der s t o set
a side the rev e rsi o n a ry ri g h ts (as A p p e l l a n ts c a l l the m ) o r res tr i c ti v e co v e n a n ts ( as char act er i zed by A ppel l ees) r el at i n g t o t hei rpr opert i es. I n each oft hose
ca se s, ei t hert he pl ai nti ffs obt ai ned a pos t - ans w erde f aul tj udgm ent , ort he part i es set t l ed, w i t h t he def endan t s agr eei ng t o t he r em oval oft he r est r i ct i ons. I n atl eastone case, t he t r i al courtgr ant ed sum m ar y j udg m entf ort he pl ai nt i f f s, set t in g a si de t he “r est r i ct i ve covenan t s, condi t i ons subsequen t , and r evert er cl aus es ” con t ai ned i n t he pl ai nti f f s’ de eds . Butt he su m m ary j udgm ent evi den ce he r e d oesnoti ncl ude t he pl ea d i n g s i n t hatca se , an d s o w e c ann ot2 ... S ee T EX . R. C IV . P . 1 6 6 a (a ), (c); MMP, Ltd. v. Jones , 710 S. W . 2d 59,

6 0 (T e x . 1 9 8 6 ). 4 sa y w het hert he r es t r i ct i ons ati ss ue ort he su m m ary j udgm entgr ounds
assert ed i n t hatcase w er e t he sam e as t hose her e. A ppe l l ee s m ove d f or su m m ary j udgm enton s i x gr ounds : ( 1) t her e a r e n o p e rs o n s o r e n ti ti e s w i th a ri g h t to e n fo rc e th e re s tri c ti o n s ; (2 ) A p p e l l a n ts a re
c o l l a tera l l yes to p p e d fr o m co n tes ti n g A p p e l l e e s’ clai m s c o n c e rning the i n v a l i d i ty
a n d u n e n f o r c e a b ilit yo ft h e re s t r i c t i o n s ; ( 3 ) t h e re s t r ic t io n s a r e u n e n f o r c e a b le d u e to A p p e l l a n ts’ w a i v e r an d ab a n d o n m e n t o f th e res tr i c ti o n s; ( 4 ) A p p e l l a n ts
ar e pr event ed f r om enf or ci ng t he r est r i ct i ons due t o t he chang ed cond i t i ons t hat
m ak e i ti m pr ac t i ca l an d i neq ui t abl e t o e nf or ce t he r estric t i ons ; ( 5) t he
r es t r i ct i onsi n que st i on a r e b ar r ed by t he r ul e a gai ns tpe r pet ui t i es ; an d ( 6) t he
r es t r i ct i ons , i fl eft i n pl ac e, ac tasan i m per m i ss i bl e r es t r ai nton t he al i ena t i on oft he re a l p rope rt y i n que st i on. The t r i al co urtgr ant ed su m m ary j udgm ent
w i t hou tspeci f yi ng t he gr oun ds. II. S TANDARD OF R EV I EW A p la in t if fis e n t it le d t o s u m m a r yju d g m e n to n a c a u s e o f a c t i o n ifit
c o n c lu s iv e lyp r o v e s a ll e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s o ft h e c la im . W hen r evi ew i ng a 2
su m m a ry j u d g m e n t, w e tak e as tr u e a l l e v i d e n c e fav o rab l e to th e n o n m o v a n t, and w e i ndul ge eve r y r ea so nab l e i nf er enc e a nd r es ol ve any d o u b ts i n t he3 ... IHS C eda r s Trea tm ent

Ctr. of D eSoto, Tex. , I

nc. v. Mas on , 143 S .W .3 d 7 9 4 , 7 9 8 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ).

4 ... Cit y of

Hous ton v. Cle a r

Creek Ba si

n Auth. , 589 S. W . 2d 671, 678 (T e x . 1 9 7 9 ). 5 n o n m o v a n t’s fa v o r. T h e s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t w i l l b e a ffir m e d o n l yi f th e re c o rd 3
es t abl i sh est hat the m ova ntha s con cl us i vel y pr ove d a l l es se nt i al el em ent s of t h e mo v a n t ’ s c a u s e o fa c t i o n o rd e f e n s e a s a ma t t e ro fl a w. 4 III. A NA LYS IS I n t he U nkno w n H ei r s’ sol e i ssue and t he C r anz A ppel l ant s’ f i r sti ssue, t hey c o n te n d thatt he t r i al co urter r ed by f i ndi ng t hatt he dee d r es t r i ct i ons
cr ea t ed r es t r i ct i ve cov ena nt s and by gr ant i ng s um m ary j udgm enton t he gr ound th a t th e re a re n o p e rs o n s o r e n ti ti e s w i th a ri g h t to e n fo rc e th e re s tri c ti o n s . W e hol d t hatt he t ria l cour tdi d not er rby gr ant i ng sum m ar y j udg m entr egar dl ess ofw het hert he r e s tri c ti ons ar e c har ac t er i z ed asr es t r i ct i ve cov ena nt s or
re v e rs i o n a ryi n te re s ts . A courtm ay r ef use t o enf or ce a r est r i ct i ve covenan tw her e t he part i es ent i t l ed t o e nf or ce i tha ve ac qui es ce d “i n su ch su bs t ant i alvi ol at i onsw i t hi n t he
r es t r i ct ed ar ea ast o am ount t o an aba ndonm ent of t he cov ena ntora w ai verof t he r i ghtt o e nf or ce i t ” orw her e “ t her e h asbe en su ch a cha nge ofco ndi t i ons in t h e re s t r ic t e d a r e a o rs u r r o u n d in g itt h a t itis n o lo n g e rp o s s ib le t o s e c u r e in5 ... Cowl i ng v. Col

l i gan , 158 Te x. 458, 461– 62, 312 S. W . 2d 943, 945 (1 9 5 8 ). 6 a s u b s ta n ti a l d e g re e th e b e n e fi ts s o u g h t to b e re a l i z e d th ro u g h th e c o v e n a n t.” 5 I n t hi s ca se , A ppe l l ee s i nt r oduc ed t hous and s ofpa gesof s u m m ary j udgm ent
e v id e n c e , in c lu d in g e v id e n c e r e la t in g t o t h e c h a r a c t e ro ft h e n e ig h b o r h o o d . T h is evi dence i ncl udes a r eportf r om t he FortW ort h Pl anni ng D epart m entt hat i d e n ti fi e s W e st S e v e n th S tr e e t as a c o m m e rci a l c o rr i d o r th a t t h e cit yw i sh e s to
r e v it a liz e a n d f in d s t h a tt h e c o r r id o r is a n a r e a “ c h a r a c t e r iz e d b yp r e d o m in a n t ly
com m er ci al l and uses, ” i ncl udi ng r est aur ant s. A ppel l ees’ evi dence al so i ncl udes
a new spaperart i cl e, t w o af f i davi t s, al coho l i c bever age r ecei pt s f r om t he T exas C om pt r ol l erofPub l i c A ccoun t s, and m i xed bever age per m i t s and w i ne and beer
r et ai l erper m i t s, w hi ch, w hen t aken t ogether , i ndi cat e t hatt her e a re over tw e n t y bu si nes se s i n a nd a r ound t he vi ci ni t y ofA ppe l l ee s’ pr ope rt y t hata re
o p e n l yse l l i n g alco h o l i c b e v e rag e s, at l e a st tw e l v e o f w h ic h a re o n p rop e rt y convey ed by t he Land C om pany by deed s cont ai ni ng t he sam e r est r i ct i ons as th o s e a t i s s u e h e re . A p p e l l e e s a l s o i n tro d u c e d e v i d e n c e o f p a s t tri a l c o u rt j udgm ent s se t t i ng a si de t he V an Zandtr es t r i ct i onson a tl ea stf i f t ee n l ot s i n a nd
ar oun d t he vi ci ni t y ofA ppel l ees’ pr opert y. Thi s evi dence show s t hatA ppel l ees’ pr ope rt y i s l oca t ed i n a n a r ea of pr edo m i nan t l y c om m er ci al l and us e w her e t he
a lc o h o l re s tr ic tio n s h a v e b e e n v io la te d o p e n lya n d n e v e r ju d ic ia ll ye n fo rc e d . It6 ... 1 9 7 S .W .2 d 1 3 7 , 1 4 1 (T e x . C i v . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 4 6 , n o w ri t).
7 ... Id. a t140– 41. 7 i s n o l o n g e r po ss i b l e to re a l i ze w h a tev e r be n e fi ts th e g r a n to r ha d h o p e d to
r ecei v e o r t o i m partt o gr ant ees by pr event i ng t he sal e ofal coho l i n t he ar ea bec aus e a l coh ol i s bei ng s ol d t hr ougho ut t he ar ea , and due t o t he r es t r i ct i ons hav i ng be en pr evi ous l y de cl ar ed une nf or ce abl e o n a num ber of l ot s t hr ougho ut th e V a n Z a n d t s u b d i v i s i o n s , i t i s n o l o n g e r p o s s i b l e fo r th e a re a to b e o n e w h e re t he sa l e of al coh ol i s pr ohi bi t ed uni f or m l y ac r os s t he vi ci ni t y by re st r i ct i ve
c o v e n a n ts . A ppel l ant s ci t e Hemphi l l v. Cayce i n s upportoft hei rar gum ent s t hatt he

6
r es t r i ct i onss houl d notbe he l d une nf or ce abl e d ue t o c han ged co ndi t i onsor
w ai verand aband o n m e nt . W e do not f i nd t hatcase cont r ol l i ng. That case
a d d res se d w h e n a c o u rt sh o u l d refu se to e n fo rce a c o v e n a n t r e stri c ti n g p rop e rt y t o r es i den t i al us e a nd he l d t hat t he pr es enc e of so m e b us i nes se s i n orne art he
ar ea i s not eno ugh t o r end ert he ar ea uns ui t abl e f orr es i den t i al pur pos esab se nt
so m e r adi ca l cha nge i n t he vi ci ni t y. Thathol di ng do esnotaf f ec tourde ci si on 7 i n t hi s ca sew her e t he r es t r i ct i onsati ss ue ar e a gai ns t t he sa l e ofal coh ol , not
com m er ci al us e, an d w her e c han ge i n t he vi ci ni t y ( t o one w her e al coh ol i s so l d)8

i s nei t hert r i vi al norso f arr em oved fr om A ppel l ees’ pr opert y so as nott o af f ect i t. F in a lly , a lt h o u g h t h e C r a n z A p p e lla n t s s t a t e in t h e irb r ie ft h a tt h e a f f id a v it ofN ei l V an Zan dt“cr eat es a f act i ssue r egar di ng t he r el evant cond i t i ons, ” t hey d o n o te x p la in h o w t h e a f f id a v it r a is e s a f a c t is s u e a s t o t h e s a le o fa lc o h o l in th e are a . V a n Z a n d t sta tes i n h i s a ffi d a v i t t h a t he i s fa m i l i a r w i th the p rop e rt y “m adet he su bj ec tof ” t hi s su i tan d t hat“ [ t ] o t he bes tof[ hi s] kn ow l edg e n one has e v e r b e e n us ed f ort he sa l e o fal coh ol . ” Thi s vag ue st at em entdoe s not addr ess th e speci f i c, cont r overt i ng sum m ar y j udg m entevi dence of A ppel l ees and do es not m ent i on at al l t he sal e of al coho l i n t he ar ea on ot herpr opert i es notow ned by A ppe l l ee s. W e hol d t hatt he t r i al co urtdi d noter rt o t he ext ent t hat i t gr ant ed su m m ary j udgm ent on t he gr ound t hat i f t he r es t r i ct i ons i n t he V a n Z a n d t d e e d s a re re s tri c ti v e c o v e n a n ts , th e ya re u n e n fo rc e a b l e . To th e e xt entt hatt he r es t r i ct i onsca n beco ns t r ued ascr ea t i ng
re v e rs i o n a ryri g h ts , t h e t r i a l c o u rt a l s o d i d n o t e rr b yg ra n ti n g s u m m a ry j udgm entf or A ppe l l ee s. A ppe l l ant s ar gue t hatt he r es t r i ct i onscr ea t e r i ght s of
r ee nt ry th atw er e d i st r i but ed t o t he La nd Com pan y’ s sh ar eho l der s upon di ss ol ut i on oft he cor por at i on, an d t her ef or e t he y , a s f or m ers har eho l der s or h e i rs o f fo rm e r s h a re h o l d e rs , m a ye n fo rc e th o s e ri g h ts . T h e q u e s t i o n b e fo re t hi s cou rti s notw het hera r i ghtofr ee ntry i s a pr ope rt y r i ghtt hatw oul d be8 ... S ee Field v. Sh aw , 535 S. W . 2d 3, 5 ( Te x. Ci v. App.

— Am a r i l l o 1976,

no w r i t ) ( “A cond i t i ona l l i m i t at i on e xi st s w hen t he es t at e i s l i m i te d b y t he hap pen i ng ofan ev entw hi ch, w hen i toc cur s, t er m i nat es t he es t at e w i t houtt he necessi t y ofr eent r y. A condi t i on subsequ entdesi gnatesan eventw hi ch, w hen i t h a p p e n s , g i v e s th e g ra n to r th e ri g h t to te rm i n a te th e e s ta te b yre e n try .” ); Jam esv. Dal

ha rtCon s ol

. ISD , 2 5 4 S .W .2 d 8 2 6 , 8 2 9 (T e x . C iv . A p p .— A m a r illo 1 9 5 2 , w r itr e f ’ d ) ( d e f in in g a “ d e t e r m in a b le f e e ” a s “ a n e s t a t e w h ic h c o u ld r em ai n f or everor w hi ch coul d t er m i nat e on t he happ eni ng of t he conti ngen cy l i mi t i n g t h e e s t a t e ” a n d n o t i n g t h a t “ [ a ] l t h o u g h t h e wh o l e e s t a t e wa s i n t he g ra n te e o r o w n e r, th e p o s s i b i l i tyo f re v e rte r re m a i n e d i n th e g ra n to r” ).

9 ... La w yer

s Trus tCo. v. Cit y of Hous ton , 359 S .W .2 d 887, 890 ( Tex. 1 9 6 2 ).

10 ... Id. 9 di st r i but ed t o a co m pan y’ s sh ar eho l der s upon di ss ol ut i on oft he com pan y; t he q u e sti o n i s w h e th e r t h e g ran to r i n t h is ca se ( th e La n d C o m p a n y ) i n ten d e d to
c rea te a ri g h t of ree n tr ytha t w o u l d b e e n fo rce a b l e b yi ts sh a reh o l d e rs a fter i ts d i ss o l u ti o n . W e h o l d tha t i t did n o t. W e i ni t i al l y note t hat i f t he Land C om pany h ad i nt ended t o conv ey ei t her an est at e on cond i t i on subsequen t ora det er m i nabl e f ee subj ectt o a condi t i onal l i m i t at i on, t he dee ds ar e u ncl ea rast o w hi ch w asi nt end ed i n t h a t t he dee ds

8 contai n som e l angu age t hathas been hel d t o cr eat e a condi t i on subsequ entas
w el l ass om e l ang uag e t r adi t i o n a l l y he l d t o c r ea t e a l i m i t at i on. The T exas 9 Supr em e Courtha s hel d t hatw her e a de ed c re at esdoub tast o w het hert he gr ant ori nt end ed a l i m i ta ti o n ora con di t i on s ubs equ ent , t he dee d s houl d be
c o n stru e d as cre a ti n g a c o n d i ti o n su b se q u e n t, an d so i f t h e d e e d s c rea te 10... See i d. ( const r ui ng as a cond i t i on subsequen ta pr ovi si on i n a deed t hat 11 i fco nve yed pr ope rt y c ea se d t o be us ed f ori t s des i gna t ed pur pos e, t i t l e t o t he p ro p e rtyw o u l d v e s t i n th e g ra n to r); Stevensv. Galves ton, H
. & S. A
. Ry. Co. , 2 1 2 S .W . 6 3 9 , 6 4 4

– 4 5 (T e x . C o m m ’n . A p p . 1 9 1 9 , j u d g m ’t a d o p te d ). Bu tsee, e. g. , Ragl

and v. O verton , 4 4 S .W .2 d 7 6 8 , 7 7 1 (T e x . C iv . A p p . — A m a r illo 19 31 , no w r i t ) ( t r eat i ng a r est r i ct i on si m i l art o t hatoft he V an Zan dtdeeds as i m p o rti n g a re s tri c ti v e c o v e n a n t). ... W

i chita F al l s G ra i n Co. v. Tayl

or Foundry Co. , 649 S. W . 2d 798, 800 12 ( Tex . A pp. — Fort W ort h 19 83 , w r i tr ef ’ d n. r . e. ) ( “I ti s w el l sett l ed t hatt he l aw d o e s n o tf a v o rf o r f e it u r e s , t h a ta d e e d w ill b e c o n s t r u e d t o a v o id a f o r f e it u r e if possi bl e, and t hatf or f ei t ur e pr ovi si ons w i l l be const r ued m ost st r ong l y agai nst th e g ra n to r.” ), Kni

ght v. Chi

cago C or

p. , 183 S
. W . 2d 666, 671 ( Tex. Ci v. A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 1 9 4 4 ), a ff’d, 1 4 4 T e x . 9 8 , 1 8 8 S .W .2 d 5 6 4 (1 9 4 5 ); see al so He a r n ev. Bra dsh a w, 158 Te x. 453, 456, 312 S. W . 2d 948, 951 ( 1958) (“ C o n d i ti o n s s u b s e q u e n t a re n o t fa v o re d b yth e c o u rts .” ).

13 ... Benne ttv. Tar

rant Count y W

ater Control

& I mprovem ent

D i st. No. O ne , 8 9 4 S .W .2 d 4 4 1 , 4 4 6 (T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 5 , w rit d e n ie d ) (“ In s e e k i ng t o a s c e rt a i n t he i nt e nt i on of t he pa rt i e s , t he c ou rt m us tatte m p t t o h a rm o n i z e a l l p a rts o f th e d e e d .” ). 10 r eve r si ona r y i nt er es t s, t he i nt er es t s ar e r i ght s ofr ee nt r y up o n b re ac h of
c o n d i ti o n su b se q u e n t. A n d w e ag ree w i th A p p e l l a n ts th a t l a n g u a g e si m i l a r t o th a t of th e V a n Z a n d t d e e d s h a s s o m e ti m e s b e e n d e term i n e d to i m p a rta
c o n d i ti o n su b se q u e n t, alt h o u g h the l a w i n this are a i s n o t cl e a r or co n sisten t. 11 Bu tt he l aw does notf avor f or f ei t ur e pr ovi si ons or r est r i ct i ons on t he use ofco nve yed pr ope rt y. W e const r ue deeds as a w hol e, 12 keepi ng i n m i nd t hat 13 t he part i est o a de ed “i nt end ev ery c l au s e to h a v e s om e e f f ec tan d i n s om e14 ... A ltm an v. Bl ake , 7 1 2 S .W .2 d 1 1 7 , 1 1 8 (T e x . 1 9 8 6 ). ... Ragl

and, 4 4 S .W .2 d a t 7 7 1 ; se e a l soStevens , 212 S. W . at644 ( not i ng 15 t hatbecause f or f ei t ur es ar e not fa v o r ed, l angu age or di nar i l y used t o cr eat e a c o n d i ti o n s u b s e q u e n t i s s tri c tl yc o n s tru e d a g a i n s t th e g ra n to r).

16 ... See Stevens , 212 S. W . at645 ( hol di ng t hatw her e t he gr ant or s i n t he dee ds ati ss ue di d notap pea rt o ha ve ha d a n y i nt er es ti n t he con di t i ons expr essed i n t he deeds ot her t han t he enhan cem ent i n val ue of t hei rot her p ro p e rty th a t w o u l d re s u l t fro m th e c o m p l i a n c e w i th th e c o n d i ti o n s , a n d w h e re t he gr ant or s had subse q uentl y convey ed al l t hei rot herpr opert y t hatw as expect ed t o benefi tf r om t he cond i t i ons, t he gr ant or s had no i nt er esti n f urt her c o m p l i a n c e w i th th e c o n d i ti o n s ), Ma ddoxv. A da ir, 66 S. W . 811, 813– 14 ( Tex. C i v . A p p .— D a l l a s 1 9 0 1 , w ri t re f’d ) (sa m e ). 11 m e a s u re to e v i d e n c e th e i r a g re e m e n t.” D e e d re s tri c ti o n sa n d fo rfe i tu re 14 cl aus esar e s t r i ct l y c ons tru e d a g ai ns tt he gr ant or , an d a ny d oubt s ast o t he i nt ent i ons oft he gr ant orw i l l be r esol ved i n f avoroft he gr ant ee and “t he f r ee
a n d u n re s tri c te d u s e o f th e p re m i s e s .” 15 Forex am pl e, t he Texa s C om m i ss i on ofA ppe al s , fa c e d w i t h c ons t r ui ng l ang uag e a ppe ar i ng t o c r ea t e a co ndi t i on s ubs equ ent , he l d th a t the g r ant or i nt ended by t he cond i t i on t o i ncr ease t he val ue of hi s ot herpr opert y i n t he ar ea and t hatt her ef or e t he cond i t i on on l y e n d ur ed unti l t he gr ant or ’ s pur pose had b e e n m e t ; t h u s , w h e n t h e g r a n t o r o w n e d n o m o r e p r o p e rt y t h a t w o u ld b e n e f it f r om t he con di t i on, t he gr ant or cou l d no l onge r enf or ce t he c o n d i ti o n. O n e 16
cou rtofap pea l s hel d t hata pr ovi si on s i m i l art o t he one i n t he V an Zandtde eds di d noti nur e t o t he ben ef i toft he gr ant or s’ he i ran d c oul d notbe en f or ce d by17 ... D agg e tt v. Cit y o f Fo rt Wo rth , 177 S
. W . 222, 223 ( Tex. Ci v. A p p .— A m a ri l l o 1 9 1 5 , n o w ri t).

18 ... Ragl

and , 44 S
. W . 2d a t771. ... McMahan v. Greenwood, 108 S
. W . 3d 467, 488– 89 ( Tex.

19 A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 3 , p e t. d e n i e d ).

20 ... S e e, e .g ., T EX . R EV . C IV . S T AT . A NN . a rt . 1302

- 2. 06 ( Ver no n 2003) (sta t in g t h a t a d o m e sti c en ti ty m a yi n so m e ca se s b ri n g su i t ag a i n st i ts 12 t he hei rw hen t he con vey anc e sa i d onl y t hatupon br ea ch oft he con di t i on, t he pr oper t y w oul d r evertt o t he gr ant or s. I thas al so been held th a t w her e a 17
re s tri c ti v e c l a u s e s ta te s th a t th e d e e d w o u l d b e c o m e n u l l a n d v o i d i f th e d e e d ’s
c o n d i ti o n w a s b re a c h e d b y th e “ g ra n te e , h i s h e i rs [,] o r l e g a l re p re s e n ta ti v e s ,” bec aus e t he cl aus e o m i t t ed t he w or d “ as si gns , ” anybr ea ch by a n a ss i gne e o f t he gr ant ee w oul d notca us e a r eve r si on. 18 The de edsi n t hi s ca se st at e t hatupon br ea ch oft he dee d r es t r i ct i ons , t he pr oper t y convey ed w oul d r evertt o “t h e g rantorher ei n and i t s l egal
r epr es ent at i ves . ” The t er m “ l ega l r epr es ent at i ve” has no f i xed m ea ni ng i n t he l a w , b u t T e x a s c a se l a w su g g e sts tha t t h e term refers to “ o n e w h o i s a p a rt y
su b sti tu te o r o n e w h o c a n su e o n a n o th e r’ s b e h a l f” o r “o n e w h o su c c e e d s to
a p a rty ’s l e g a l ri g h ts , b yre a s o n o f d e a th , o r th e o p e ra t i o n o f l a w .” Texas 19 st at ut es i n som e c a ses def i ne w hen a per son m ay actf oranot heras a l egal
r epr esent at i ve. Undert he com m on l aw , “w hen t her e i s not hi ng i n t he con t ext 20m ana ger i al of f i ci al s ei t herby ac t i ng di r ec t l y or t hr ough “a r ec ei ver , t r us t ee , or

other lega l

repres entative ” ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ); T EX . P R OP . C ODE A NN . § 54. 006 ( V er non 2007) ( di st r es s w ar r antm ay be app l i ed f or by a per so n t o w hom r ent i sp a y a b l e u n d e r a l e a s e o r b yth e p e rs o n ’s “ a g e n t, a tto rn e y , a s s i g n , or other legal repres e n ta tive ” ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ); T EX . L AB . C ODE A NN . § 50 3. 071 ( V er non 2006) ( st at i ng t hatt he at t or neyge ner al i s t he l ega l r epr es ent at i ve of t h e in s t it u t io n s o f t h e U n iv e r s it yo fT e x a s S y s t e m a n d m a yb r in g a n d d e f e n d a ll s u i ts n e c e s s a ryto c a r r y o u t th e p u rp o s e s o f th a t c h a p te r o f th e l a b o r c o d e ); T EX . W ATER C ODE A NN . § 26. 022 ( c) ( V er non 2008) (w i th re s pec tt o not i ce of hea r i ngs , “ [ i ] ft he part y i s notan i ndi vi dua l , t he not i ce m ay be gi ven t o a ny o ffice r, a g e n t, o r l e g a l re p re s e n ta ti v e o f th e p a rty ” ).

21 ... McMahan , 1 0 8 S .W .3 d a t 4 8 7

– 8 8 ; se e a l soNew ton v. New ton , 77 T e x . 5 0 8 , 5 1 1 , 1 4 S .W . 1 5 7 , 1 5 8 (1 8 9 0 ) ( “ E x e c u t o r s , a d m in is t r a t o r s , a n d , if th e re b e n e i th e r, th e h e i rs , a re th e l e g a l re p re s e n ta ti v e s o f a d e c e a s e d p e rs o n ” ).

22 ... S e e, e .g ., Hanover I ns. Co. v. Hoch , 469 S. W . 2d 717 , 724 ( Tex. Ci v. A p p .— C o rp u s C h ri s ti 1 9 7 1 , w r i t re f’d n .r.e .) (h o l d i n g th a t th e D e a d M a n ’s S ta tu te d i d n o t e x c l u d e te s ti m o n y a s to c o n v e rs a ti o n s w i th th e d e c e d e n t w h e re t he t hi r d- part y def endan t s w er e sued i n t hei ri ndi vi dual capaci t i es and notas l e g a l re p re s e n ta ti v e s o f th e d e c e d e n t’s e s ta te ).

23 ... McMahan , 108 S
. W . 3d at 491 ( not i ng t hatt he “p r i m ary m ea ni ng of t he t er m ‘ l egal r epr esent at i ves ’ w oul d, ofcour se, yi el d t o a cont extw hi ch c l e a rl ys h o w e d a d i ffe re n t m e a n i n g w a s i n te n d e d ” ). 13 t o c ont r ol i t s m ea ni ng, i t s pr i m ary a nd or di nary m ea ni ng i s ‘ e x e cut or s and
a d m i n i s tra to rs .’” 21 C ourt s gen er al l y di st i ngui sh bet w ee n a p er so n a ct i ng i n hi s ow n r i ghtan d
o n e a c ti n g a s th e l e g a l re p re s e n ta ti v e o f a n o th e r. A l t hough t he t er m m ay be 22
co n s t r u e d mo r e b r o a d l y wh e r e i t a p p e a r s a b r o a d e r c o n s t r u c t i on w as i nt end ed, i n th i s c a s e , w e m u s t r e s o l v e a n yd o u b t a b o u t th e g ra n to r’s

23 i nt ent i on a gai ns tt he gr ant or . A cor por at i on’ s sh ar eho l ders m a y , i n s om e24 ... See, e. g. , El T. Mexi ca n Res ts. , I

nc. v. Bac on , 921 S. W . 2d 247, 251, 2 5 3 ( T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 s t D is t .] 1 9 9 5 , w ri t de n i e d ) (no ti n g tha t i f a c o r p o r a t io n ’s c h a rt e rh a s b e e n f o r f e it e d , t i t le t o t h e c o r p o r a t io n s ’ a s s e t s is b i fur ca t ed, w i t h ben ef i ci al t i t l e i n t he sh ar eho l der s, and i n t hat c a s e , a s h a re h o l d e r m a ys u e o n th e c o rp o ra ti o n ’s b e h a l f, a s th e c o rp o ra ti o n ’s re p re s e n ta ti v e , b u t i t m a yn o t s u e to re c o v e r i n d i v i d u a l l y ).

25 ... S e eSuggv. Sm ith , 2 0 5 S .W . 3 6 3 , 3 7 0 (T e x . C iv . A p p .— A u s t in 1 9 1 8 , w ri t re f’d ) (“[W ]h e n c o rp o ra ti o n s d i e o r c e a s e to e x i s t th e yh a v e n o h e i rs w h o i n h e ri t th e i r p ro p e rtyo r th e i r ri g h ts . T h e i r a s s e ts b e l o n g to th e s to c k h o l d e rs

. . .; [b u t] the stockho lders do notconstitute the cor porati on or its l egal rep resentative f u rt h e r t h a n i s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e i r r i g h t s as s to c k h o l d e rs .” ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ).

26 ... A nderson v. NewProp. O wners’ A ss’ n of New port , I nc. , 122 S. W . 3d 37 8, 38 5– 86 ( Tex . A pp. — Tex ar kana 2 00 3, pet . deni ed) ( di scussi ng deed r es t r i ct i onsf i l ed by t he cor por at i on de vel opi n g a s ubdi vi si on, w hi ch t he cor por at i on ha d pr ovi ded w oul d “ i nur e t o t he ben ef i toft he C or pora ti o n , its successor

s and assi

gns”) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ).

14 ci r cum st ances, r epr esentt he cor por at i on, but i n t hat case, t he shar ehol der s act f or t he cor por at i on and not t hem sel ves. For m ers har eho l der s ofa cor por at i on, 24 aft ert hatco r por at i on’ s di ss ol ut i on a nd per i od ofw i ndi ng up , do n otr epr es ent t he cor por at i on. T h u s , i f th e L a n d C o m p a n y h a d i n te n d e d th e ri g h t o f re e n try 25 t o p a s s t o a n d b e e n f o r c e a b le b yit s f o r m e rs h a r e h o ld e r s a f t e rd is s o lu t io n , it
w o u l d h a v e m a d e s u c h i n te n ti o n c l e a r, fo r e x a m p l e , b yth e u s e o f th e te rm

“ s u c c e s s o rs ” o r “ s h a re h o l d e rs u p o n d i s s o l u ti o n .” W e hol d t hatt he t er m “l egal 26
r epr esent at i ves, ” as used i n t he V an Zan dtdeeds, does noti ncl ude A ppel l ant s. Furt her , al t hough t he r es t r i ct i on i n ea ch dee d s t at est hati ti s bi ndi ng on th e g ra n te e a n d a n y o f h i s h e i rs , l e g a l re p re s e n ta ti v e s , a n d a s s i g n s th e re a fte r,27 ... S ee E l T
. Mexi c a nRes ts . , I

nc. , 9 2 1 S
. W . 2d at253, n. 10 ( st at i ng t hat , ha d t he so l e s har eho l derofa cor por at i on di ss ol ved t he cor por a ti on, he w oul d ha ve “p r ope r l y a cqu i r ed bot h i t s as se t s and i t s l i abi l i t i es ” and bec om e t he c o rp o ra ti o n ’s s u c c e s s o r i n i n te re s t); C HRI STOP HER G UST AVUS T I EDEMAN & E DWA RD J OSEPH W HITE , T HE A MERI CAN L AWOF R EA L P RO P ER TY§ 30 ( 190 6) ( “And i ft he con vey anc e b e t o a co r por at i on t h e w or d ‘ su cc es so r s’ t ak est he pl ac e o f ‘h e i rs ,’ sin c e a c o rp o ra ti o n c a n n o t h a v e h e i rs .” ).

28 ... Perryv. Sm ith , 231 S. W . 340, 344 ( Te x. Com m ’ n App. 1921 , j u d g m ’t a d o p te d ).

29 ... Compare El T. Mexi can Res ts. , I

nc , 921 S. W . 2d at253– 54 ( st at i ng t h a tift h e c o r p o r a t io n a t is s u e h a d b e e n d is s o lv e d , it s s o le s h a r e h o ld e rw o u ld have been t he cor por at i on’ s success ori n i nt er est , but because t he shar ehol der h a d n o ty e td is s o lv e d t h e c o r p o r a t io n , t h e s h a r e h o ld e r w a s n o t a s u c c e s s o rin i n te re s t); and

T EX . B US . C ORP . A CT A NN . art . 5. 06 ( V er non 20 03 ) ( st at i ng t hat w hen t w o c or por at i ons m er ge, t he su r vi vi ng orne w co r p o ra ti o n ow ns t he pr oper t y oft he m er ged cor por at i ons, unl ess t he pr opert y i s ot her w i se pr ovi ded fo r i n th e p l a n o f m e rg e r), and I n t’ l A ss ’n o f Ma ch i

n i sts, L o d g e No . 6v. F

a l sta ff Bre wi ngCo rp ., 3 2 8 S .W .2 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 1 ( T e x . C i v . A p p .— H o u sto n 1 9 5 9 , n o w ri t) ( hol di ng t hatasap pl i ed t o c o r por at i ons , t he t er m “ su cc es so r ” “d oesnot o rdina ri l y c o n n o te a n as sign e e , b u t i s n o rm a l l yu se d i n res p e c t t o co rpo rate ent i t i es , . . . and doe s not con t em pl at e ac qui si t i on byor di nary pu r cha sef r om a n o th e r co rpo rati o n , a n d , i n res p e c t to n a tu ral p e rso n s, i s a p t an d ap p rop ri a te te rm to d e s i g n a te o n e to w h o m p ro p e rtyd e s c e n d s o r e s ta te o f d e c e d e n t” ). 15 t he deed does not use such t er m s as “success or s” an d “ as si gns ” i n de sc r i bi ng 27 t o w hom t he es t at e w oul d r eve rtupon br ea ch oft he con di ti o n , ev en t hough
som e oft he deeds by w hi ch t he Land C om pany convey ed pr opert y i n t he V an Z a n d t s u b d iv is io n s w e r e e x e c u t e d a f t e ritw a s ju d ic ia llyd e t e r m in e d t h a tin T exas, r i ghtsofr eent r y ar e assi gnab l e, a n d e v e n t h o u g h a d i s s o l ved 28
cor por at i on’ s success or s can be i t s shar ehol der s. W e t hi nk i tr el eva ntt hatt he 29 l i stoft hos e a gai ns tw hom t he r es t r i ct i o n w oul d r un i ncl ude d notj us tt he30 ... S ee D i l beck v. Bi

l l Gaynier

, I nc. , 368 S. W . 2d 804 , 808 ( Tex. C i v. A pp. — D al l as 19 63 , w r i tr ef ’ d n. r . e. ) ( st at i ng t hat t he courtdi d not bel i eve t hat t he app el l antgr ant or s con t em pl at ed f or f ei t ur e o f th e co nve yed pr ope rt y a nd noti ng t hat“[ i ] fappel l ant s had any s uch i nt ent i on i tcoul d easi l y have been e x p r e s s e d i n t he de ed ” an d t ha t “[ i ] t s om i ssi on , w hi l e no t co ntr ol l i ng , is s i g n i fi c a n t” ). 16 g ran tee b u t al l tho se tha t co u l d tak e fr o m the g ran tee , b u t th e l i st o f t h o se to
w hom t he pr ope rt y c oul d r eve rtw as m uch m or e l i m i t ed. Undert he l ang uag e 30
o ft h e d e e d s , A p p e lla n t s o n lyh o ld t h e rig h t s o fre e n t r yf r o m t h e d e e d s in t h is
c a s e i f th e ya re “ th e g ra n to r” o r “ i t s l e g a l re p re s e n ta ti v e s .” A p p e l l a n ts a re
c l e a rl yn o t t h e La n d C o m p a n y , a n d w e h a v e alr e a d yh e l d tha t t h e yare n o t i ts

“ l e g a l re p re s e n ta ti v e s .” C ons t r ui ng t he dee d a s a w hol e, an d r esol vi ng a ny d oubtag ai ns tt he gr ant oran d i n f avo roft he gr ant ee an d t he f r ee an d unr estrict ed us e o ft he pr ope rty , w e h ol d t hatt he r es t r i ct i on w asi nt end ed t o be nef i tt he La nd C om pan y on l y w hi l e i t con t i nue d i n e xi st enc e, en gag i ng i n t he bus i nes s of
se l l i ng r ea l es t at e, an d w asnoti nt end ed t o e xi stpe r pet ual l y f ort he ben ef i tof i t s f or m erst ockho l der s and t hei rhei r s. Th e Land C om pany h as been di ssol ved and i t s af f ai r s w ound up, an d Appel l ant s ar e n oten t i t l ed t o e nf or ce t he
r est r i ct i ons. A ppe l l ant s ar gue t hatr eve r si ona r y r i ght s m ay be dev i se d, con vey ed, or
a s s ig n e d a n d t h a tw h e n t h e c o m p a n y d is s o lv e d , t h e r e v e r s io n a r yrig h t s in t h is17

c a se w e re d i stri b u ted to th e sh a reh o l d e rs a s a m a tter o f l a w . T h e fac t t h a t a
r ig h t of r ee ntr y m ay be de vi sed , co nv ey ed , or ass i gn ed do es no t co m p e l a hol di ng t hat , i n t hi s case, t he gr ant ori nt ended t o cr eat e a r i ght of r eent r y t hat
w oul d be i nher ite d , conv eyed, orassi gned ort hatA ppel l ant s now hol d t hat ri g h t. A p p e l l a n ts p o i n t to s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t e v i d e n c e o f a p ro b a te c o u rt j udgm ent st at i ng t hat r eve r si ona r y r i ght s w er e ves t ed as a m at t er of l aw i n t he shar ehol der s oft he Land C om pany u pon t he com p a n y ’s d iss ol ut i on. That j u d g m e n t do e s n o t se t fo rt h the d e e d l a n g u a g e cre a ti n g the rev e rsi o n a ry ri g h ts ati ss ue i n t hatca se , s o e ven i ft he pr oba t e c ourt w a s c o rre ctt hata r i ghtof
r ee nt r y pas se s t o sh ar eho l der s upon a c om pan y’ s di ss ol ut i on, i ti s notr el eva nt t o a d e t e r mi n a t i o n i n t h i s c a s e o f wh e t h e r t h e g r a n t o r i n t e n d e d t h e r i g h tof
r ee nt r y t o be enf or ce abl e by i t s su cc es so r s. And w e n ot e t hatt he l ang uag e o f t hatpr oba t e j udgm enti ndi ca t est hatt he con di t i o n re l a t ed t o w het hert he pr oper t y ati ssue w as used f orschool pur poses. Si m i l ar l y, A ppe l l ant s ar gue t hat t he dee ds di d notha ve t o s t at e t hatt he pr ope rt y w oul d r eve rtt o t he gr ant or or i t s “h ei r s” bec aus e cor por at i onsdo n ot hav e “ hei r s” ; butev en i f t he w or d “ hei r s”i s notr equ i r ed t o m ak e v al i d a r i ght ofr eent r y i n a deed f r om a cor por at i on, because t h e la n g u a ge oft he deed31 ... S ee Gl adewater

Coun t y Li

ne ISDv. Hugh es , 59 S .W .2 d 3 51, 354 ( Tex. Ci v. A pp. — Texa r ka na 1 9 3 3 ), a ff’d , 124 T e x. 190, 76 S
. W . 2d 471 ( 193 4) ( “[ A ] de ed w i l l notbe co ns t r ued t o c r ea t e a n e st at e o n c ondi t i on or l i m i t at i on un l ess l angu age i s used w hi ch . . . , f r om t hei row n f or ce, i m port s a c o n d i ti o n o r l i m i tati o n o r t h e i n ten t o f th e g ran to r to m a k e a co n d i ti o n a l es tate i so th e rw i s e c l e a rl ya n d u n e q u i v o c a l l yi n d i c a te d .” ). 18 s h o w s n o in t e n t io n t o a llo w s u c c e s s o r s t o h o l d o re n f o r c e t h a trig h t , w e w ill not cr eat e one. 31 Fi nal l y, A ppel l ant s ar gue t hatA ppel l ees have j udi ci al l y adm i t t ed t hat A ppe l l ant s ar e s ucc es so r s t o t he r i ght s ofr ee nt r y. Theyba set hei rar gum ent on t he f ac tt hatA ppe l l ee s ar gue d t hatA ppe l l ant s ar e c ol l at er al l y e st oppe d by
e a r lie rju d g m e n t s “ b e c a u s e t h e ya r e s u c c e s s o r s in in t e r e s tw h o d e r iv e d t h e ir cl ai m s ei t hert hr ough t he [ La nd] Com pan y . . . orea r l i erunk now n he i r s and
s t o c k h o ld e r s .” A g a in , e v e n ifA p p e lla n t s a r e c o r r e c tt h a tA p p e lle e s ju d ic ia lly adm i t t ed t hatA ppe l l ant s ar e t he su cc es so r s i n i nt er es tt o t he La nd Com pan y, th a t do e s n o t r e q u ir e a h o l d i n g tha t A p p e l l a n ts h o l d ri g h ts o f r e e n tryto A ppe l l ee s’ pr ope rt y t hatt heyar e ent i t l ed t o e nf or ce ort hatt he La nd Com pan y i nt end ed f ori t s su cc es so r s t o hol d s uch r i ght s. W e h a v e h e l d t hatt he La nd C om pany’ s deeds evi dence no such i nt ent i on. W e t her ef or e hol d t hatt he t r i al
cour tcoul d have pr oper ly g r ant ed sum m ar y j udg m enton t he gr oun d t hat A ppe l l ant s do no tha ve a r i ghtt o e nf or ce t he r es t r i ct i ons . W e o ver r u l e t he U nkn ow n Hei r s’ s ol e i ss ue and t he C r anz A ppe l l ant s’ f i r sti ss ue on t he gr ound32 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 1.
33 ... S ee i

d. 19 t hatA ppe l l ant s ar e n oten t i t l ed t o e nf or ce t he dee d r es t r i ct i ons , an d w e d o not
r each A ppel l ant s’ ot herar gum ent s w i t h r espectt o t he deed r est r i ct i ons. 32 In th e i r s e c o n d i s s u e , th e C ra n z A p p e l l a n t s ’s a s s e rt th a t th e tri a l c o u rt
er r ed by g r ant i ng Appel l ee s’ s m ot i on t o st r i ke t he C r anz A ppe l l ant s’ r equ es tf or cl as s ce rt i fi c a ti o n. Bec aus e w e h avehe l d t hatt he t r i al co urtdi d noter rby g ran ti n g su m m a ry j u d g m e n t f o r A p p e l l e e s, w e o v e rr u l e this i ss u e as m o o t. 33 I V . Concl us i on H a v i n g o v e rr u l e d A p p e l l a n ts’ i ss u e s, w e affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E
PA N EL B: D A U PH I N O T, H O LM A N , an d GA RD N ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: J un e 19, 2008