## Facts

- Road 195-P crossed Kenneth and Cynthia Cleaver’s tract and served as the access route to Charles Cundiff’s tract, which otherwise lacked practical access.
- Cundiff’s predecessors (the Armstrongs) openly and continuously used Road 195-P for ingress and egress and performed visible maintenance and improvements (including grading and gravel).
- The Cleavers later purchased the servient tract and began restricting access by chaining the road and changing gates to prevent Cundiff’s use.
- Cundiff sued to enforce an easement by estoppel over Road 195-P.
- A jury found an easement by estoppel existed, but also found the Cleavers purchased in good faith without knowledge of the easement.
- The trial court disregarded the jury’s good-faith-purchaser finding and rendered judgment recognizing an easement by estoppel in Cundiff’s favor.

## Issues

1. Whether legally and factually sufficient evidence supported the elements of an easement by estoppel over Road 195-P.
2. Whether the Cleavers qualified as bona fide purchasers without notice, and whether the trial court properly disregarded the jury’s good-faith-purchaser finding.
3. Whether the trial court erred in denying summary judgment and dispositive trial motions and in refusing a requested instruction that “use alone” does not establish an easement by estoppel.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment recognizing an easement by estoppel over Road 195-P in favor of Cundiff.
- The court held the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury’s easement-by-estoppel finding.
- The court held the Cleavers were not bona fide purchasers without notice because the roadway’s open and obvious use and condition constituted constructive notice requiring inquiry.
- The court held the trial court did not err in disregarding the jury’s good-faith-purchaser finding.
- The court rejected challenges to denial of summary judgment and directed verdict/JNOV, and found no abuse of discretion in refusing the requested jury instruction because the charge adequately stated the governing elements.

## Legal Principles

- Easement by estoppel may arise when a landowner’s representation or conduct induces another to believe an easement exists, the other reasonably relies on that belief, and the other changes position to their detriment.
- The existence of an easement by estoppel is a fact-intensive equitable determination, and evidence of long-standing access use coupled with maintenance/improvements may support inducement, reliance, and detriment.
- Open, visible, and continuous use of a roadway can provide constructive notice of a potential non-record easement claim and imposes on purchasers a duty to make reasonable inquiry.
- A purchaser who fails to inquire despite visible circumstances suggesting an access claim cannot claim bona fide purchaser protection without notice, even if no recorded easement appears in the chain of title.
- A jury charge is adequate if it correctly submits the required elements; a court need not add an instruction that is unnecessary or risks misleading the jury.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an easement by estoppel over an access road based on long-standing, visible use and maintenance establishing inducement and reliance, and it held that the road’s obvious presence and use gave purchasers constructive notice that defeated a bona fide purchaser defense.


Cleaver v. Cundiff, 203 S.W.3d 373 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006)