Martin v. Cockrell

Facts

A pasture road traverses D's property to the northern middle section of P's property. At trial, Paul Jones testified his family built the pasture road from a cow trail in the late 1930s or early 1940s. The Jones family used the pasture road to tend to their cattle. In 1941, the Ingrums purchased the property. The Ingrum property abutted the southern border of the Jones property. From the early 1940s, Larry Ingrum testified the Ingrums usually used the pasture road on the Jones property to exit their property and travel north to County Road 24. They placed cattle in the pasture nearest to the Jones property so they wouldn't have to ride two pastures. The Ingrums would enter their property from the west side, come down through the middle tending their cattle, and then exit their property using the pasture road on the Jones property. Eventually, the Ingrums built some cattle pens and a couple of windmills in the middle pasture and used the pasture road on the Jones property to service the windmills. Ingrum testified there was a gentlemen's agreement between his family and the Joneses permitting the Ingrums to enter and exit their property over the pasture road on the Jones property. There was no written agreement or contract. The Ingrums used the pasture road on the Jones property 'by friendly neighborly permission.' Ingrum further testified they 'never claimed to have a legal right to use the road' and agreed that their right to use the road was 'consistent with friendly permission.' Jones testified his family didn't have 'a problem with [the Ingrums] using the road,' the two families were 'just friends'---'friendly use of the road.' Nobody ever asked permission to use the road and permission was never given. Alice Ingrum Gray inherited the Ingrum property. She had two sons, P and Lee Cockrell, Alice's guardian. D purchased the Jones property from Paul Jones. D leased the Ingrum property from May to October of each year for grazing purposes. D's wife, Susan, cared for their cattle on the Ingrum property approximately three times a week. She would enter and exit the Ingrum property via Gray County Road 22 off Highway 152, or she would cross the Ingrum property and exit on County Road 26. She testified it was unnecessary for her to use the pasture road to care for their cattle on the Ingrum property. The difference between using the disputed pasture road and Ingrum's entry roads was simply a matter of convenience, rather than necessity. The distance required to travel to access the north middle of the Ingrum property from Ingrum's road was approximately eight miles, whereas access via the disputed pasture road was approximately five miles. Between 2000 and 2002, D did not observe anyone, or evidence of anyone, traveling over the disputed pasture road. In 2002, D gave Gray County permission to use the pasture road to haul caliche dug from a pit on the Ingrum property. D gave the county permission to haul caliche across the pasture road via a 'gentlemen's agreement,' not a formal easement. In order to use the pasture road year-round to haul caliche, with D's permission, the county applied caliche to the road. The county also installed a culvert or cattle guard where the Ingrum property adjoined D's property and, to protect the county's caliche, Martin installed a combination lock at the point of entry to the Ingrum property from the pasture road in 2002. When the county ceased hauling caliche in 2006, the county removed the culvert or cattle guard, removed the caliche from a portion of the pasture road, and plowed and seeded the roadway to return the pasture road to its original condition per D's request. In November 2006, P asked D for the combination to the locked gate in order to check the windmills located in Ingrum's middle pasture. D gave P the combination. Three days later, Marshall Hopkins began parking heavy equipment on D's property intending to haul caliche out of the Ingrum pit to satisfy his requirements for a local job for Teja Feeders. Hopkins told D that P had given him permission to haul the caliche over the pasture road. D refused to allow Hopkins use of the road and Hopkins removed his equipment. D installed a combination lock on the gate located at the juncture of County Road 24 and the pasture road on his property. He did not give this combination to P. In April 2007, P received the Ingrum Property. P informed D that he would not lease his pasture to D because he was giving his middle pasture a rest. P called D and asked for the combination of the lock on the gate. D agreed to meet P at the gate and let him in and out. Eventually. P filed suit to obtain use of the pasture road. P filed a petition seeking a temporary injunction and the trial court granted a temporary injunction enjoining D from restricting P's use of the pasture road for agricultural purposes. D gave P the combination and P and Hopkins traversed the pasture road with heavy equipment to remove caliche from the pit. In the process, they drove off the pasture road into Martin's pasture. D counterclaimed for an order barring P from using the pasture road, trespass, and damages to repair his pasture. P then filed his first amended petition asserting a permanent equitable easement or easement by estoppel permitting him to use the pasture road on D's property asking that the trial court declare him an equitable easement over the pasture road pursuant to the Texas Declaratory Judgment Act and award him recovery of reasonable attorney's fees. The jury found that P had an equitable easement to use the pasture road, P trespassed on D's property when Hopkins's equipment was driven outside the pasture road, P's use of a passageway alongside the pasture road was not privileged, and D was entitled to no damages for P's trespass. the trial court granted P a permanent easement of ingress and egress over the pasture road on D's property for agricultural purposes and that D take nothing as to his counterclaim. D appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2025 ABN Study Partner.