Background
Local Chapter, LLC and John William Weinacht disputed title to a two-acre tract in Presidio County. Local Chapter claimed the land fell within property it acquired through deeds in 2019 and 2020. Weinacht claimed the tract under a deed recorded in 2005 and a 2006 correction deed. Local Chapter’s 2019 deed expressly identified Weinacht’s correction deed among the third-party claims to which its conveyance was subject.
The tract contains a permanent memorial to Juni Hernandez, who was killed there in 1997. After buying the property, Weinacht allowed the Hernandez family to reinstall a steel cross, which remained visible from the county road and was illuminated at night. Weinacht paid the property taxes, regularly visited and maintained the tract, authorized the Hernandez family to patrol and use it for memorial observances, and later added fencing, utilities, a septic tank, and improvements to an adobe structure. When Local Chapter sued in 2023 to establish and quiet its title, Weinacht counterclaimed for title based on adverse possession. The trial court granted Weinacht’s summary-judgment motion, denied Local Chapter’s competing motion, and declared Weinacht the owner.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Weinacht conclusively established adverse possession under Texas’s ten-year statute. From 2005 until suit was filed approximately 18 years later, his possession was actual, visible, continuous, open, notorious, peaceable, exclusive, and hostile to Local Chapter’s asserted record title. His recorded deed, tax payments, visible memorial, regular oversight, restricted use of the property, and physical improvements unmistakably asserted exclusive ownership.
Because Weinacht’s traditional summary-judgment ground was dispositive, the court did not decide whether he also satisfied the five-year or 25-year adverse-possession statutes. It held that the trial court properly granted Weinacht’s motion and denied Local Chapter’s motion based on the ten-year statute alone.
The court also rejected Local Chapter’s procedural arguments. Local Chapter failed to preserve its complaint about the denied continuance because it attended the summary-judgment hearing without bringing its motion to the trial court’s attention or objecting to proceeding; in any event, it showed no harm. The trial court permitted supplementation with the requested 1905 land application, but not with additional briefing and 37 exhibits. Finally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing Local Chapter’s new-trial motion to be overruled by operation of law or by declining to modify a summary-judgment order that adequately identified the motions, evidence, arguments, and disposition.
Key Takeaways
- Visible memorial use, property oversight, tax payments, restricted access, and physical improvements collectively established continuous and exclusive adverse possession for more than ten years.
- An appellant does not preserve a complaint about a continuance merely by filing a motion; the record must show that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention and a ruling or objection was obtained.
- Permission to supplement the summary-judgment record with one identified document does not authorize additional briefing and exhibits beyond the trial court’s express ruling.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that adverse possession does not necessarily require residential occupancy or intensive cultivation. Regular control, a conspicuous permanent memorial, maintenance, tax payments, limits on others’ use, and property improvements can conclusively demonstrate the open, hostile, and exclusive possession required by Texas’s ten-year statute.
It also underscores the importance of creating a clear trial-court record. Parties seeking a continuance, leave to supplement, or post-judgment relief must affirmatively obtain or request a ruling and cannot rely solely on filing a motion or on informal communications from court staff.