http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20TXCO%2020110407705.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
and
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20MECO%2020110407225.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
Happy reading !
Cheers
Derek
And a third...
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20ARCO%2020110406010.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR
:beer:
OH HAR HAR HAR A FENCE CASE IN TEXAS!
FENCE WINS!
😉
From a California perspective, that case would never ever ever never ever get resolved that way here.
OH HAR HAR HAR A FENCE CASE IN TEXAS!
The Texas case had some bad lawyering going on. In the last paragraph the court says:
Here, appellants have provided no substantive legal analysis or argument and have cited no authority to support their claimed errors. We will not make appellants arguments for them. We conclude these issues are inadequately briefed and present nothing to review.
That one gives a whole new meaning to the "let sleeping dogs lie" theorem.
;o)
JBS
OH HAR HAR HAR A FENCE CASE IN TEXAS!
> From a California perspective, that case would never ever ever never ever get resolved that way here.
That's what happens when the courts turn every "boundary location" issue into a "title" issue. Adverse Possession is the only remedy they have to rely upon to settle ancient controversies. Common law doctrines which determine boundary location are non-existent in Texas law.
JBS
OH HAR HAR HAR A FENCE CASE IN TEXAS!
> The Texas case had some bad lawyering going on. In the last paragraph the court says:
>
> Here, appellants have provided no substantive legal analysis or argument and have cited no authority to support their claimed errors. We will not make appellants arguments for them. We conclude these issues are inadequately briefed and present nothing to review.
The "bad lawyering" only applied to the third and fourth issues argued before the Appellate Court. The first two issues didn't hold scrutiny against the lower court's finding of Adverse Possession.
JBS
OH HAR HAR HAR A FENCE CASE IN TEXAS!
Somehow I've the impression there are no fences in Texas. Even this one disappeared.
Seems like weird way to resolve a boundary. The court even took a strange angle at one of the requirements for adverse possession to make it fly. That's what happens when you take the common sense out of common law, starts to sneak back in.
JB
It sounds like you are once again applying your own version of the law to the decisions of high courts. Arguing with Appellate and Supreme Court decisions in other states than those you work in is a fun exercise, I suppose, but if you worked in Texas, wouldn't you take this decision seriously? If you worked in CA, wouldn't you take CA case law seriously? Unless I have misunderstood you in seminars I have attended and opinions on these message boards, you have scoffed at high court decisions because you, John Stahl, disagree with them. I don't think I've ever heard a Stahl opinion cited in a court decision.
Best Harsh Regards,
Steven A. Gardner
Steve
it's been several hours since I read it but I think that had something to do with some technicality on how the case was brought to the trial court (Trespass to Try Title vs Declaratory Relief). But yes, you are right, seems like some amateur lawyer antics were going on there. Aren't they supposed to know how to bring their case forward?
Sec 16 of the Texas Civil Procedures Act as interpreted by the court vindicated the 'Use It or Lose It' article posted on the old board.
Calif's ss 321, (dealing with unplatted land), would have the same result, given the same conditions.
Unchallenged occcupation and control will result in clear title as long as the laywers know and argue the existing law; the problem is that the surveyor must inform the lawyer which law applies because they don't know as they are not qualified to enter onto the land, recover and analyze established physical evidence.
Surveyors who provide bogus surveying services by focusing on the record rather than the established physical boundaries are the cause of many, if not most, of the boundary dispute problems.
When you don't know your own rights and responsibilities as a land owner, you cannot provide minimally acceptable professional services helping others to protect the rights of which you are ignorant.
Richard Schaut