Opinion ID: 1748512
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Alternative Action for Damages against James

Text: The lot owners had an alternative cause of action for damages against James for breach of contractual duty. The breach referred to is James's failure to inform his grantee, Smith, that the lot owners had easements by estoppel over the ranch. The theory was that in the event their equitable rights of easement by estoppel were cut off by the purchase of legal title by Smith, [16] they could then recover damages against James for his failure to give notice to Smith, the subsequent owner of the ranch. Of course, this action is not directed at rights allegedly created by dedication or to easements created by implication since these rights, if they had existed, would have passed with the land. They would not have been equitable in nature or subject to being cut off by a bona fide purchaser of legal title. The jury findings were against the lot owners on their theory of James's nondisclosure. The jury found that Smith bought with notice that one or more plaintiffs claimed the rights to use the ranch for pleasure and recreation purposes. The special issues on damages were conditioned on a finding that Smith had no notice. The jury did not answer those issues. In short, the jury finding destroyed an essential element in the damages theory, and the trial court entered a take-nothing judgment against the lot owners as to damages. The lot owners took no appeal from this adverse judgment. Whether their failure to do so constituted waiver of their cause of action for damages, or whether the trial court's judgment simply became final thereon are questions which need not be discussed here. In either event, the lot owners cannot now recover on that cause of action. The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is affirmed. SMITH, J., dissenting.