Opinion ID: 2828796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The 2003 Judgment Giving the City Ownership

Text: Herschell White originally owned the land, and the City brought a condemnation action so it could dig a drainage channel. As compensation for the land, the commissioners awarded, and White accepted, $207,249 (plus $17,000 for damage to the remainder of the property). The special commissioners’ report described the interest conveyed as a “right-of-way” but also incorporated by reference the City’s original petition for condemnation, which described the interest sought as a “fee 2 title.” No one objected to the special commissioners’ award, and the trial court adopted it as the judgment of the court (the 2003 Judgment).1 B. The 2004 Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc Giving API Ownership A year later, the same trial court entered a “Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc” (the 2004 Judgment), which was agreed to by the City’s and White’s attorneys. A TxDOT employee apparently also approved the 2004 Judgment by email.2 The 2004 Judgment purported to render the 2003 Judgment “null and void.” The 2004 Judgment states that the City’s interest in the land was a “right of way easement” obtained “for the purpose of opening, constructing and maintaining a permanent channel or drainage easement . . . .” Unlike the 2003 Judgment, the 2004 Judgment did not incorporate the special commissioners’ report or the City’s original condemnation petition. Rather, it referred to the City’s interest only as an easement, not fee-simple ownership. C. Subsequent Title Transfers Three months after the trial court signed the 2004 Judgment, White sold the ten acres and some surrounding property to API.3 Both the 2003 Judgment and the 2004 Judgment were recorded in the county registry before API purchased the property. In 2005, the City granted TxDOT an easement to build a drainage ditch and to remove any excavated “stone, earth, gravel or caliche.” 1 See T EX . P RO P . C OD E § 21.061 (providing that if no party objects to the findings of the special commissioners, the trial court “shall adopt the commissioners’ findings as the judgment of the court”). 2 The record is unclear as to why the parties agreed to the 2004 judgment, or why TxDOT, which did not yet have an interest in the property, would agree to the nunc pro tunc judgment. 3 API paid $292,800 for approximately 34 acres, including the 9.869 acres at issue in this case. 3