Henry Gearhart, Jylaine Gearhart, and Orion Gearhart v. John Wardell and Wife, Lois Wardell

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 21, 2015
• Docket: 13-15-00096-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 13-15-00096-CV THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 10/21/2015 4:08:10 PM Dorian E. Ramirez NO. 13-1S-00096-CV CLERK

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT

CORPUS CHRISTI-EDINBURG, TEXAS -- IN RECEIVED 13th COURT --- OF APPEALS CORPUS CHRISTI/EDINBURG, - - - ---- TEXAS - - ---- PP ------ 10/21/2015 - - ID -4:08:10 PM - ---- VO ------ DORIAN - - E. RAMIREZ HENRY GEARHART, JYLIANE GEARHART, ---- Clerk

----

AND ORION GEARHART

VS.

FILED IN 13th COURT OF APPEALS JOHN WARDELL AND WIFE, LOIS WARDELL CORPUS

CHRISTI/EDINBURG, TEXAS 10/21/2015 4:08:10 PM DORIAN E. RAMIREZ Clerk FROM THE 206th DISTRICT COURT

HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE'S SURREPLY BRIEF,

JOHN WARDELL AND WIFE, LOIS WARDELL

Ricardo Gonzalez State Bar No. 08131490 OXFORD & GONZALEZ ATTORNEYS AT LAW 124 S. 12th St. P.O. DRAWER 630 Edinburg, Texas 78540 (956) 383-5654 (956) 381-0002 - FAX ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE JOHN WARDELL

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... 4

ARGUMENT...................................................................................6

2 Cases

Schnitzendable v Hasting,

97 S.W.2d715, (Tex. Civ. App. 1936) ....................................6

Hearts Bluff v. State,

381 SW3d 461,491 (Tx 2012) ......................................................6

3 NO. 13-1S-00096-CV

CORPUS CHRISTI-EDINBURG, TEXAS

HENRY GEARHART, JYLIANE GEARHART,

FROM THE 206th DISTRICT COURT

BRIEF OF APPELLEES,

APPELLEE'S SURREPLY BRIEF

Appellee provided Supreme Court Authority that the applicable

Statute of Limitations for a permanent trespass is two years from the date of the

incursion. (Appellee's Brief pages 15-16 and case therein Schneider, Auerbach,

Provident Ins. and SVV RV). Appellants ignore the issue and concede the point. ABATEMENT

Appellees produce Supreme Court Authority that abatement "cannot

revive barred damages" arising from a permanent trespass. (Appellee's

Brief, p. 16, Schneider). Appellants drop the point. Appelleesproduced

federal and state Supreme Court authority that revival of permanently barred

actions violate constitutional standards. (Appellee's Brief pages 19-20,

Baker Hughes, Fronme and Schneider[state];and Fletcher, Bowie and

Splawn- [federal]). Appellants concede the point.

Appellees provide Supreme Court Authority that consent precludes

trespass; that an easement is "relinquishment of a right to exclude" and that

authorized entries cannot constitute trespass. (AppeUees'Briefpages 22-23,

EPS, Schneider, Watauga, Barnes, Farming). Appellants drop the point.

ARGUMENTS IN THE TRIAL COURT

Appellants argue problematically "what difference does it make whether or

not these arguments were made in the trial court?" The salient difference is that

new matters cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. This gains added

forcefulness when the case was resolved by submission and appellants put on no

evidence.

5 TAKING REVISITED

Schnitzendable v. Hastings 97 SW2d 715 (San Antonio, 1936) avails

Gearhart's nothing. It turned on the two year statute of limitations which case

held:

The cause of Action for damages for interferences with an easement for ingress and egress held barred by two -year statute of limitations where road was blocked in 1926, after which plaintiffs made no attempt to cross defendant's land and suit was not instituted until March 29, 1934 id P 716.

It is plain from the evidence and the testimony of Schnitzendable, that his cause of action, accrued more than 2 years prior to filing and is barred by the Statute of Limitations. id p 717.

Appellant's claims for an easement by prescription or necessity were

precluded by their failure to act on it " until suit was filed, some ten years

later." id. p718. Nor could appellant claim that "his deed did not mean what

it plainly said "or that he acquired rights" contrary to the plain tenns of the

instrument." id. P 716. Appellants did not file suit until September 27,2013

4 years after the driveway was paved by John Wardell's predecessor in title.

Appellees cited Supreme Court Authority that a "taking" requires

action by a governmental entity with eminent domain authority not a private

person. (Appellees' Brief 17-18) Appellants concede the point. In addition, a

jurisdictional prerequisite to a taking required an ownership interest in the

6 propel1y taken. ( Hearts Bluff, Tx Dot v Sunset Villiage, Tx Dot v API

PIPE). Appellants ignore the point.

If the Court accepts the Appellants' is incorrect interpretation of well-

established precedent, a cause of action for trespass or interference with an

easement would have a perpetual statute of limitations.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

F or the reasons stated the decision of the trial court should be

affirmed.

Respectfully submitted,

OXFORD & GONZALEZ Attorneys at Law 124 S. 1ih St. P.O. Drawer 630 Edinburg, Texas 78540 (956) 383-5654 (956) 381-0002 - FAX

BY: --~+--+-------+~--~- Ricardo Gonzalez State BarNo. 08131490 ATTORNEY FOR APP

7 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Counsel for Appellee

verifies that the foregoing document contains 795 words.

8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On this t-t th day of October, I sent a copy of this brief to the Offices of Preston Henrichson and Brandon Holibar regular mail and further emailed it to

them.

Preston Henrichson Brandon Holibar

222 W. Cano 3409 N. 10th Street, Suite 100

Edinburg, Texas 78539 McAllen, Texas 78501

(956) 383-3535 (956) 687-6294

(956) 381-3585- Fax (956) 687-5514 - Fax eservices@henrichsonlaw.com info@kinglrgvlaw.com

Ricardo Gonza ez Oxford & Gonzalez 124 S. 12th Street.

Edinburg, TX 78539

(956) 383-5654

(956) 381-0002 - Fax ric@oxfordandgonzalez.com

9 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

97 S.\'V.2d 715, (rex. Civ. i\pp. 1936) ............ " ..................................................................5

Hearts Blutf v. State,

381 S\!V3d 461, 491 (fx 2012).............................................................................................5