McClung v. Ayers

Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana
352 S.W.3d 723 (2011)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A long history of using a neighbor's land for access does not establish a prescriptive easement if the use is permissive and non-exclusive, nor does it create an easement by estoppel, necessity, or implication without clear evidence of adverse use, detrimental reliance on a representation, or necessity existing at the time of the property's severance from a common owner.

Facts:

The McClung family has owned a landlocked parcel of property since 1911.
Since 1929, no one has resided on the McClung property; family members have used it a few times per year for recreational purposes like hunting and fishing.
The Ayers family purchased the adjoining property, which provides access to a public road, in 1945.
For several decades, members of the McClung family crossed the Ayers' property to access their own land.
Testimony at trial was conflicting: the McClungs testified they never asked for permission, while Irene Ayers and another witness testified that the McClungs had permission and would often stop and ask before crossing.
In 2000, Irene Ayers locked a gate on her property, preventing the McClungs from crossing.
From 2000 to 2004, another neighbor, Gary Buck, granted the McClungs temporary permission to cross his land to reach theirs.
After Buck revoked permission, the McClungs were unable to secure permission or an easement from any other neighboring landowners.

Procedural Posture:

The McClungs filed suit against Irene Ayers in a Texas trial court, alleging the existence of an easement under four alternative legal theories.
The case was tried before a jury.
The jury returned a verdict finding that no easement existed under any of the four theories presented.
The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Ayers, consistent with the jury's verdict.
The McClungs filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a motion for a new trial, both of which the trial court denied.
The McClungs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, with Ayers as the appellee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a landowner's long-term, intermittent, and neighborly use of a path across an adjacent property to access their landlocked parcel establish a prescriptive easement, or an easement by estoppel, necessity, or implication, when there is conflicting evidence as to whether the use was permissive?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Morriss

No. A landowner's long-term use of a neighbor's path does not establish an easement where the evidence fails to satisfy the strict requirements for creation by prescription, estoppel, necessity, or implication. The court affirmed the jury's verdict because there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support its finding that no easement existed under any theory. For the prescriptive easement claim, there was conflicting evidence about whether the McClungs' use was permissive or adverse; the jury was entitled to believe the testimony that permission was granted, which defeats the element of adversity. Furthermore, because the Ayers family also used the way, the McClungs' use was not exclusive. For the easement by estoppel claim, the McClungs failed to prove a representation by Ayers, a belief they had a right to cross, or significant reliance on such a belief. For the claims of easement by necessity and implication, the McClungs failed to provide evidence that a roadway was necessary at the time the properties were originally severed from a common owner in the 19th century.

Analysis:

This case reinforces the high evidentiary burden required to establish an easement by means other than an express written grant, particularly in Texas. It demonstrates that long-standing, permissive, and neighborly accommodation for land access will not ripen into a legally enforceable right. The decision highlights the significant deference appellate courts grant to a jury's role in resolving conflicting testimony and weighing witness credibility. For property owners, this case serves as a crucial reminder that informal access arrangements are precarious and can be revoked, underscoring the importance of securing express, written easements to ensure permanent access to landlocked property.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: McClung v. Ayers (2011)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature