Court Opinion

ID: 9653081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:38:22.393144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:56.322762
License: Public Domain

GREEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree that the Weidenfellers have failed to establish an easement by necessity or the dedication of a public road. But because I also believe the Weidenfellers have failed to prove the essential elements for the creation of an easement by estoppel, I respectfully dissent.
“In order to create an easement by estop-pel, something must be said or done by the owner of the servient estate at the time of the grant of the dominant estate that induces *135the acceptance of the grant.” Lakeside Launches, Inc. v. Austin Yacht Club, Inc., 750 S.W.2d 868, 872 (Tex.App.—Austin 1988, writ denied) (italics added). In this case, however, there is no evidence whatsoever that Henry Meier (the owner of the purported servient estate) made any representations to his daughter, Bertha Schupp (the grantee of the purported dominant estate), which could be interpreted as inducing her to accept the grant of the 58 acre tract of land from her father.
The majority’s analysis is flawed because it ignores critical facts. First, Bertha Schupp and her husband already owned acreage immediately adjoining the 53 acre tract in question, which acreage could be accessed without crossing her father’s property. Second, and perhaps most important for this analysis, Henry Meier gifted the 53 acre tract to his daughter.
The conveyance of the 53 acres to Bertha Schupp was a gift from father to daughter in consideration of “the natural love and affection I have and bear for my said Daughter ...” and as an advancement on her share of her parents estate. No inducements were involved. The only reasonable inference from the evidence is that Bertha Schupp accepted the land without reservation or condition as a most grateful beneficiary. And while the language of the gift deed reserves the right of the grantor to maintain access across the 53 acres for an indefinite period of time, there is nothing to suggest that Schupp relied on any right of access across her father’s property for herself as a condition of her accepting the gift of the 53 acres.
In the absence of evidence that Bertha Schupp relied on any representation of her father that she would have access to the 53 acres across his property, as an inducement to her accepting the property, the Weidenfel-lers have failed to establish an easement by estoppel across the Holden ranch.
I would reverse the judgment below and would render in favor of the Holdens.