## Facts

- Joe Welton Heather inherited farmland from his father; he later acted as trustee for the Heather Revocable Trust.
- Rebecca R. Horner inherited adjacent land from her father; she held title as trustee of the Rebecca R. Horner Revocable Living Trust.
- A dirt road on Horner’s tract provided access from Heather’s tract to a main/public road.
- Before the parties inherited their properties, Horner’s father told Heather’s father he could use the road to reach the main road.
- Horner testified her father described the arrangement as permission that could be revoked if Heather’s family disturbed any part of Horner’s land.
- After Horner inherited the servient tract, Heather approached her and asked for a written easement over the roadway.
- Horner refused to grant a formal easement.
- Heather sued, alleging that a right to use the roadway existed by easement by estoppel based on the prior representations and long use.
- At trial, Heather testified that when he and his father made improvements to their own property, they did not rely on any representations made by the Horners.
- Heather also testified that he made no improvements to the surface of the claimed easement area (the roadway itself).
- After a bench trial, the trial court granted Heather an easement by estoppel over Horner’s property.
- Horner appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and complaining about the denial of requested additional findings of fact and conclusions of law.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally and/or factually sufficient to support the trial court’s finding of an easement by estoppel over Horner’s land.
2. Whether the trial court reversibly erred by denying Horner’s request for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law.

## Decision

- The court of appeals reversed the judgment awarding an easement by estoppel and rendered judgment that the Heathers take nothing on that claim.
- The court held the evidence was legally insufficient to prove easement by estoppel because the record did not show detrimental reliance on a representation that an easement existed or would be granted.
- Any complaint about additional findings did not warrant relief in light of the dispositive failure of proof on the easement-by-estoppel elements.

## Legal Principles

- Easement by estoppel requires proof of: (1) a representation (or conduct) by the owner (or predecessor) that an easement exists or will be granted, (2) belief in and reliance on that representation by the claimant, and (3) a change in position to the claimant’s detriment such that it would be unjust to deny the easement.
- Long-term use of a roadway that began as permission does not, by itself, establish an easement by estoppel; the claimant must prove reliance and detriment tied to the alleged representation.
- Testimony that the claimant did not rely on the landowner’s statements when improving the dominant estate is evidence that defeats the reliance and detriment elements.
- The absence of expenditures or physical improvements to the claimed easement area may support a finding that the claimant did not materially change position in reliance on a promise of a permanent access right.
- On legal-sufficiency review after a bench trial, an easement-by-estoppel judgment cannot stand when the record lacks evidence on an essential element, including detrimental reliance.

## Conclusion

The court of appeals held that Heather’s use of the dirt road across Horner’s land remained permissive because the evidence did not show that Heather (or his predecessor) relied on any representation of a permanent easement or made a detrimental change in position based on such a representation; therefore, the trial court’s judgment granting an easement by estoppel was reversed and judgment was rendered for Horner.


Horner v. Heather, 397 S.W.3d 321 (2013)