## Facts

- Owners of forty-three lake lots began leasing individual lots to tenants in the 1970s using non-lawyer-drafted forms.
- The disputed leases fell into categories: (1) leases stating the term was “indefinite,” (2) leases with no stated end date, and (3) fixed-term leases; the case focused primarily on the first two categories across twenty-five lots.
- Over decades, tenants occupied the lots and made significant improvements consistent with long-term possession.
- The original lessors allegedly told tenants they could remain “as long as they wanted” or “for life.”
- A successor owner acquired the lots in 2008 and attempted to replace existing leases with new forms imposing higher rent and a 30-day termination clause.
- Tenants refused to sign and sought declaratory relief that their existing leases created long-term leasehold rights.
- After a bench trial, the trial court treated “indefinite term” leases as 99-year leases but treated “no end term” leases as tenancies at will.
- The landlord appealed the 99-year construction; tenants under “no end term” leases cross-appealed the tenancy-at-will determination.

## Issues

1. Whether leases expressly stating an “indefinite” term create tenancies at will or long-term leasehold estates (subject to Texas’s statutory term limits).
2. Whether leases with no stated end date must be treated as tenancies at will or may be construed as long-term leasehold estates based on the parties’ intent and surrounding circumstances.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the determination that leases stating an “indefinite” term were valid long-term leases construed as 99-year leases under Texas law.
- The court rejected the landlord’s position that “indefinite” necessarily meant terminable at will.
- The court reversed and rendered in part as to certain “no end term” leases, holding they were improperly classified as tenancies at will where the evidence showed an intent to create long-term, non-at-will possession.
- The court’s disposition was affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part.

## Legal Principles

- Lease duration provisions that are ambiguous, imprecise, or omit an end date are construed by determining the parties’ intent from the instrument, surrounding circumstances, and course of dealing.
- Texas law limits the maximum duration of a leasehold estate in real property; an attempted longer or indefinite duration may be enforced up to the statutory cap (treated as a 99-year term).
- A tenancy at will generally arises when no definite time is agreed upon and the arrangement is terminable at the will of either party; however, the absence of a calendar end date does not compel an at-will classification if intent shows a long-term term-of-years estate.
- Longstanding possession, substantial tenant improvements, and representations about continued occupancy may support construing an indefinite or no-end-date lease as creating a secure, long-term leasehold rather than an at-will tenancy.
- A successor landlord cannot unilaterally recharacterize existing long-term leasehold interests as at-will tenancies by offering new lease forms with short termination provisions.

## Conclusion

The court held that “indefinite” and certain no-end-date lake-lot leases reflected an intent to create long-term leasehold estates and, under Texas’s statutory limit, were properly construed as 99-year terms rather than automatically terminable tenancies at will, requiring partial reversal of the trial court’s at-will classifications.


Providence Land Servs., LLC v. Jones, 353 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2011)