Texas Court of Appeals reverses implied easement involving Gillespie County ranch

Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association submitted an amicus brief to reaffirm and establish important precedent related to implied easements being imposed by trial courts

FORT WORTH, Texas (March 27, 2024) - In response to the Court of Appeals of the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ruling in Bloxom v. Mutt Land Holdings, LP. Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association President Carl Ray Polk today issued the below statement:

"Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association was proud to see the Amarillo Court of Appeals uphold fundamental private property rights through their ruling in Bloxom v. Mutt Land Holdings, LP. The case represents a new and concerning trend across Texas in areas where subdivisions and other developments are springing up near existing ranches. District courts are increasingly bypassing the trial process and granting easements across adjacent ranches by summary judgment. This ruling affirms the longstanding protection of private property rights in Texas law."

Background:

• In 2023, the 216^th District Court in Gillespie County, Texas compelled long-time ranchers and Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association members, Tom and Lou Bloxom, to provide Mutt Land Holdings, LP permanent access across their ranch via an easement by estoppel. Mutt Land Holdings, LP had another means of access but wanted to cross the Bloxoms' ranch for their convenience.
• The district court sided with Mutt Land Holdings, LP, granting the company an easement by estoppel across the Bloxoms' property without a trial on the merits. Such a decision goes against well-established case law and thorough process. Bloxom appealed the trial court's decision.
• Texas & Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association filed a brief in support of the Bloxoms, reiterating the important property rights at issue when implied (unwritten) easements are requested by adjacent landowners and the necessity of a trial before burdening a rancher with a permanent easement across their land.
• The Amarillo Court of Appeals agreed with the Bloxoms, reversing the decision of the district court and remanding the case back for a trial. The appellate court cited extensive precedent regarding the importance of private property rights and the necessity of granting easements only after a full trial in which all evidence could be considered.

###