X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Maria Bernal and Manuela Garcia appeal a judgment awarding title and possession of certain real property to Esther Chavez. In 1983, Esther Chavez and her husband, Ricardo Chavez, moved a mobile home onto a parcel of land in Pecos County. The land was a gift from Ricardo’s parents, Paula and Jose Chavez, but no deed was ever executed. Esther and Ricardo established electric service in 1983. In addition to making improvements to the mobile home, they also made improvements to the real property, including fencing and landscaping. The final appraisal roll of property in the Pecos County appraisal district for 1992, 1993 and 1994 reveals the names of both Jose Chavez and Richard Chavez in connection with this property. When Esther and Richard divorced in 1996, Esther was awarded the “mobile home situated on 20 acres in the Mesa View Division of the City of Fort Stockton.” Esther paid the property taxes until 1996 when the statements “stopped coming to [her].” With the exception of a six-month period when she lived in Del Rio, Esther and her children lived continuously on the property. Even during that period of time, Esther returned to the property on weekends. Manuela Garcia lived in a nearby house. She had known Esther since 1992, and was aware that she lived on the property. A deed introduced into evidence reflects that on Sept. 13, 1996, Esther’s former in-laws, Jose and Paula Chavez, conveyed the 11.69-acre property to their daughter, Adel Garcia, as a gift. On Jan. 13, 1998, Adel Garcia deeded the property to her aunt, Manuela Garcia. Manuela began paying the property taxes in 1998. Esther lived on the property without objection until June 6, 2000, when an attorney sent her a “notice of eviction” letter informing her that Manuela Garcia owned the property. The letter demanded that she remove the mobile home and vacate the property within three days. Esther ignored the letter and continued to live on the property. No further action was taken to evict Esther until 2004. In 2002, Manuela sold the property to Maria Bernal and Eraclio Bernal for $12,000 and entered into a contract for deed. When Maria told Esther sometime in 2002 that she was buying the property, Esther responded that she owned the land. On April 26, 2004, Esther filed a trespass to try title suit alleging that she had acquired the property by adverse possession. The court concluded that Esther had lawful title to and possession of the property and that she had met her burden of proof under Section 16.026 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Consequently, the court entered judgment awarding Esther title and possession of the property and attorney’s fees. HOLDING:The court reforms the judgment to delete the award of attorney’s fees and affirms the judgment as reformed. Appellants contend that the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to establish hostility because Esther’s initial entry was permissive and she did not give the record owner notice of the claim until 2000 when she ignored the eviction notice. Esther testified repeatedly that her former father-in-law made a parol gift of the land and she expressly denied that she merely had permissive use of the property. Possession of a donee under a parol gift of land is generally regarded as hostile from its inception and indicates an intent to take as owner. Possession under such a gift is adverse and not permissive because it is unenforceable due to its violation of the statute of frauds. Because Esther’s claim of a parol gift is supported by the evidence at trial, this finding is presumed in support of the judgment. Esther and her former husband moved a mobile home onto the property in 1983 and began making improvements to the mobile home and the real property. Esther continued to adversely possess the real property after she and her husband separated in 1991 and her adverse possession continued following the divorce in July 1996. Under these circumstances, the statutory limitations period began running in 1983, more than 10 years prior to the gift to Adel Garcia, and Esther continued to adversely possess it thereafter. The evidence is legally sufficient to support the challenged element. Appellants rely on Esther’s pleadings and testimony to show that her use and possession of the land was merely permissive. In her original petition, Esther alleged her original entry was permissive. When Esther’s testimony is read as a whole, she never wavered from her position that Jose and Paula Chavez had gifted the property in 1983. Consequently, the evidence is factually sufficient to establish that her possession and use of the property was adverse to the record owner beginning in 1983 and continued to be adverse until the time of trial. OPINION:McClure, J.; Barajas, CJ, McClure, and Chew, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.