Opinion ID: 3008277
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Twenty-Foot Strip

Text: Also at issue in this appeal is whether the City took the twenty-foot strip of land bisecting Block 38. The City’s original plan in 1830 created Block 38, which indicated there was a twentyfoot wide alley. In 1929, the Legislature relinquished fee title to the center of the alleys in the City to owners of the abutting land.22 Act of July 17, 1929, S.B. 18, 41st Leg., 3d C.S., § 1, 1929 Tex. Gen. Laws 239. The language in the deeds with which the Whittingtons acquired Block 38 referred to: “Block Thirty-eight . . . being all of Lots One through Eight (1–8), inclusive, in said Block, and all alleys and easements heretofore existing, none of such alleys having been opened and all such alleys and easements having been relinquished by the City of Austin, Texas.” Subsequent deeds among the Whittingtons described the property as: “All of Block Thirty-eight (38), being Lots One (1) through Eight (8).” The City’s 2001 condemnation resolution described the property to be taken as “Lots 1–8, inclusive, Block 38.” The City passed a resolution in 2006 stating that public use and necessity had required the taking of Block 38 (including the strip) in 2001 and that if a court determined the City did not take the strip, City staff were authorized to negotiate to acquire it and file a condemnation suit if negotiations were not successful. The City then amended its condemnation pleading to include the twenty-foot strip. The issue was tried to the court by agreement of the parties. The trial court found that Harry Whittington acquired all of Block 38 (including the twenty-foot strip) in 1981, and concluded that: 22 The law provided: “there shall be and is hereby relinquished to each owner of land abutting streets, alleys or highways in the City of Austin, Texas, the fee title to the center of the street, alley or highway upon which the particular land abuts, and for the distance along such street, alley or highway that the land abuts.” Act of July 17, 1929, S.B. 18, 41st Leg., 3d C.S., § 1, 1929 Tex. Gen. Laws 239. The law preserved any then-existing easements. Id. at § 2. 30 (1) the City’s 2001 condemnation resolution description of “Lots 1–8, inclusive, Block 38” did not encompass the twenty-foot strip; and (2) there is no easement on the strip. The City challenges these last two conclusions. We review conclusions of law de novo. BMC Software Belgium, NV v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002).
The City argues that the 1929 relinquishment law means the Whittingtons took title to the strip when they acquired Block 38 and the City’s reference to “Lots 1–8, inclusive, Block 38” in the 2001 resolution included the strip. The Whittingtons argue that the 1929 relinquishment law vested title in alleys to landowners at the time but did not change the legal description of the alleys. We agree with the Whittingtons that the 2001 resolution did not include the strip. The 1929 relinquishment law granted fee simple title in the strip to the adjoining landowners. Act of July 17, 1929, S.B. 18, 41st Leg., 3d C.S., § 1, 1929 Tex. Gen. Laws 239. However, the strip was then a separate parcel of land. As the trial court found, Harry Whittington acquired this strip in 1981 in a deed referring to “Block Thirty-eight . . . being all of Lots One through Eight (1–8), inclusive, in said Block, and all alleys and easements heretofore existing, none of such alleys having been opened and all such alleys and easements having been relinquished by the City of Austin, Texas.” (emphasis added). The use of “and” in the 1981 deed indicates that “Lots 1–8, inclusive” does not encompass the strip. The City’s 2001 condemnation resolution only referred to “Lots 1–8, inclusive, Block 38” and did not include the twenty-foot strip. The City points to a line of cases indicating that alleys are presumed to be covered by descriptions of adjoining lots. See Cox v. Campbell, 143 S.W.2d 361, 362–64 (Tex. 1940); 31 Amerman v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. of Tex., 182 S.W. 54, 57 (Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1915, writ ref’d). However, these cases refer to alleys that involve easements. See Angelo v. Biscamp, 441 S.W.2d 524, 526 (Tex. 1969). When an easement is abandoned, the landowner is vested with unencumbered fee simple title, and the presumption of an intent to convey the easement no longer applies. Id. The 1929 relinquishment law vested fee simple title to the strip in the owners of Lots 1–8 at that time. The presumption that conveying the lots also conveyed the alley no longer applied.23 See Angelo, 441 S.W.2d at 526. Accordingly, the 2001 resolution did not include the strip.
The question then is whether the 2006 resolution and pleading amendment include the twenty-foot strip and are permissible. The City asserts that the 2006 resolution and pleading amendment cured any defect and took the strip. The Whittingtons respond that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to add the strip to the condemnation proceeding because it would prejudice them.24 We agree with the City. The language of the 2006 resolution clearly indicated the City’s belief that, as of 2001, public use and necessity required condemning all of Block 38, including the strip: “The public necessity to acquire Block 38 in its entirety, including, but not limited to, the 23 This Court has long recognized a presumption that narrow strips of land that are small in size and value compared to the adjoining tract are conveyed with the larger, adjoining tract— a policy known as the “strip and gore doctrine.” Angelo, 441 S.W .2d at 526–27. The City does not assert that doctrine here. 24 The W hittingtons also assert that the City Council only authorized taking the strip if the current proceeding finds the City did not take the strip. W e disagree. The 2006 resolution indicated the City believed in 2001 that all of Block 38, the strip included, was necessary for public use. W hile the 2006 resolution did authorize separate negotiations and a condemnation proceeding if this proceeding determined the City did not take the strip, the resolution did not prohibit its use in this proceeding. 32 [strip], for the public purpose of a City parking garage, a chilling plant, and other municipal facilities is hereby confirmed and ratified as of the effective date of [the 2001 resolution].” The next inquiry is whether the 2006 resolution and pleading amendment were permissible. We have held that taking less land than a resolution specified is within a court’s subject matter jurisdiction if it does not prejudice the landowner. FKM P’ship, 255 S.W.3d at 626. We have also held that taking additional land is within a court’s jurisdiction if the parties so stipulate because the stipulation indicates no material prejudice to the landowner. State v. Nelson, 334 S.W.2d 788, 791–92 (Tex. 1960). In FKM Partnership, we left open the question of whether a trial court has jurisdiction when the condemnor amends its pleadings to take additional land after the commissioner’s hearing. 255 S.W.3d at 626 n.3. As the parties indicate, the inquiry here is whether the Whittingtons were prejudiced by the pleading amendment that included the strip. The Whittingtons’ expert testified that the strip had no independent value if the City took Lots 1–8. The jury agreed, finding the same value for Block 38 with or without the strip. Further, there is no indication that the Whittingtons were unprepared to litigate the issue and were denied a continuance. Therefore, we hold that the inclusion of the twentyfoot strip in the trial court proceedings did not prejudice the Whittingtons, and the City’s 2006 resolution properly took the twenty-foot strip.