HOUSTON – A state appeals court has largely reversed a jury decision in favor of a couple regarding express easements near their property.
The dispute centers on easements near land owned by Joseph and Debbie Chambers of Harris County that are owned by the three companies, Clearpoint Cross Property Owners Association, Cullen's LLC and 11500 Space Center LLC.
In the Court of Appeals for the 1st District, Justice Jane Bland found the easements do not grant free and unfettered access to all 32 acres of Chambers' property, but only to 7 acres previously owned by Exxon Mobil for a one-time oil and gas drilling site identified as Drill Site BB.
A jury in the 164th District earlier decided that the Chambers did have an "unqualified right of access to a public road via the adjacent landowners' private road and parking lot," the ruling states.
The appellants argued this was wrong as the easements only allowed access to the acres previously used for drilling. The Appeals Court largely agreed, though the three-justice panel did find that the express easements do not limit access to drilling-associated uses.
"We conclude that the express easements benefit a portion of the Chambers tract, and not the entire tract, because they unambiguously limit the land benefited by describing it," Bland wrote. "We further conclude that the express easements granting access do not limit that access to uses associated with drilling for oil and gas on the benefited tract."
The Appeals Court noted that Exxon Mobil previously owned the Chambers land. The easements agreed with the adjoining landowners allowed the oil company access to part of the 32 acres to use as a drill site.
After buying the land, the Chambers began using the easements to prepare to grow hay on 20 acres and building storage units on a further 5 acres.
Clearpoint and 11500 Space Center argued before a jury that the access was "limited in scope and grant the Chambers access to benefit Drill Site BB, not the entire tract, and for the sole purpose of furthering drilling activities."
"The earlier easement provided for access to the 7 acres comprising Drill Site BB and only for drilling-related activity," Bland wrote.
"We remand the case to the trial court for entry of judgment declaring that the express easements grant the Chambers tract a right of ingress and egress to and from Drill Site BB, with access not limited to uses related to drilling activity," Bland wrote. "Because Drill Site BB is contiguous to the remainder of the Chambers tract and Drill Site BB is benefited by easements granting access to a public road, we reverse the judgment declaring an easement by necessity.
"We remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings on the issues of maintenance costs and attorney’s fees."