Luis Castillo v. Sylvia Luna and Anna Garcia

Court of Appeals of Texas

Luis Castillo v. Sylvia Luna and Anna Garcia

DecidedOctober 7, 2021

Docket14-19-00971-CV

StatusPublished

This text of Luis Castillo v. Sylvia Luna and Anna Garcia (Luis Castillo v. Sylvia Luna and Anna Garcia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Luis Castillo v. Sylvia Luna and Anna Garcia, (Tex. Ct. App. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

Reversed and Rendered and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed October 7, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00971-CV

LUIS CASTILLO, Appellant V.

SYLVIA LUNA AND ANNA GARCIA, Appellees

On Appeal from the 295th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-40999

DISSENTING OPINION I disagree with the majority concerning the sufficiency of the evidence at trial and would affirm the trial court’s judgment. Specifically, I conclude there is legally and factually sufficient evidence that Appellees continuously cultivated, used, and enjoyed the strip of land at issue for a ten-year period.

Appellees testified that (1) after they bought the property in 1973, they used it to park cars, (2) they last had a car “five or six years ago”, and (3) Appellant only took down the fence and built a new one encroaching onto the area after he purchased the property in 2015. Therefore, the trial court (as the finder of fact) could have reasonably interpreted the testimony at trial to mean that Appellees had continuously used the strip of land from 1973 (at the latest) until Appellant’s 2015 purchase of the property.

Further, the chain-link fence separating the garage and driveway from Appellant’s property has been in place since at least 1966 (before Appellees even purchased their property). During the intervening years (until Appellant removed it in 2015), the fence at issue unambiguously demarcated the relevant boundary. Under these facts, I believe that designating this as a “casual fence” is incorrect; it indisputably existed in place for over half a century. The trial court could have reasonably inferred from the testimony that the land on Appellees’ side of the fence was used exclusively by them throughout that time period.

The findings of the factfinder should not be disturbed and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

/s/ Meagan Hassan Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Hassan (Christopher, C.J., majority).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Reversed and Rendered and Majority and Dissenting Opinions filed October 7, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-19-00971-CV

LUIS CASTILLO, Appellant V.

SYLVIA LUNA AND ANNA GARCIA, Appellees

On Appeal from the 295th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-40999

DISSENTING OPINION I disagree with the majority concerning the sufficiency of the evidence at trial and would affirm the trial court’s judgment. Specifically, I conclude there is legally and factually sufficient evidence that Appellees continuously cultivated, used, and enjoyed the strip of land at issue for a ten-year period.

Appellees testified that (1) after they bought the property in 1973, they used it to park cars, (2) they last had a car “five or six years ago”, and (3) Appellant only took down the fence and built a new one encroaching onto the area after he purchased the property in 2015. Therefore, the trial court (as the finder of fact) could have reasonably interpreted the testimony at trial to mean that Appellees had continuously used the strip of land from 1973 (at the latest) until Appellant’s 2015 purchase of the property.

Further, the chain-link fence separating the garage and driveway from Appellant’s property has been in place since at least 1966 (before Appellees even purchased their property). During the intervening years (until Appellant removed it in 2015), the fence at issue unambiguously demarcated the relevant boundary. Under these facts, I believe that designating this as a “casual fence” is incorrect; it indisputably existed in place for over half a century. The trial court could have reasonably inferred from the testimony that the land on Appellees’ side of the fence was used exclusively by them throughout that time period.

The findings of the factfinder should not be disturbed and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

/s/ Meagan Hassan Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Wise and Hassan (Christopher, C.J., majority).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Luis Castillo v. Sylvia Luna and Anna Garcia, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/luis-castillo-v-sylvia-luna-and-anna-garcia-texapp-2021.