Louis A. Tsakiris Family Partnership, Ltd. and A. Tsakiris Family Limited Partnership v. Waller County Road Improvement District No. 1

Opinion issued August 26, 2025.

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-22-00821-CV
———————————
LOUIS A. TSAKIRIS FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LTD. AND ALEX
TSAKIRIS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP LTD., Appellants
V.
WALLER COUNTY ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1, Appellee

On Appeal from the 506th District Court
Waller County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. C-266

OPINION

This appeal involves an eminent domain proceeding brought by Appellee

Waller County Road Improvement District No. 1 against Appellants Louis A.

Tsakiris Family Partnership, Ltd. and Alex Tsakiris Family Limited Partnership Ltd.

to condemn and declare certain property owned by Appellants as a permanent
easement to be used for a paved extension of Kingsland Boulevard in Waller County,

Texas. The District sued Appellants for statutory condemnation and pleaded for

declarations that Appellants were not entitled to any compensation for the

condemned easement because Appellants had dedicated the easement to the public

and, alternatively, the easement existed by estoppel.

The trial court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment on its

claims for condemnation and declaratory relief and rendered a final judgment

awarding the District “possession and ownership of the Kingsland Easement” and

declaring that because the easement “exist[ed] as a public right of way by express

dedication and by estoppel,” Appellants were “entitled to no compensation for the

District’s condemnation of such easement.”

In five issues, Appellants argue the trial court erred in granting summary

judgment for the District because (1) the District lacked standing; (2) Waller County

failed to comply with Chapter 281 of the Texas Transportation Code; (3) with respect

to the District’s easement by estoppel claim, the District failed to prove that

Appellants made any representations to the District and, even if such representations

were made, there is a question of material fact on the element of reliance; (4) with

respect to the District’s express dedication claim, the District failed to prove that

Waller County accepted an offer to dedicate the specific easement the trial court

condemned, and the alleged offer was conditional upon events that were never met,

2
and (5) there are questions of material fact regarding the boundaries of the proposed

“realigned” easement, and the District is not entitled to summary judgment as a

matter of law because the easement awarded to Appellee in the final judgment,

which the trial court found was a public roadway based on express dedication and

estoppel, is not supported by any evidence.

We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Background

Kingsland Boulevard is a four-lane boulevard located inside the boundaries

of Waller County Road Improvement District No. 1. The question the trial court

considered on summary judgment was whether at some in point in 2009 or after,

Appellants or their predecessors in interest created an easement by express

dedication or estoppel allowing the District to condemn the easement to construct a

paved extension of Kingsland Boulevard without compensation to Appellants.

The Waller County Road Improvement District No. 1 is a special district

created by the Texas Legislature “to serve a public use and benefit.” TEX. SPEC.

DIST. CODE § 3832.004(a). It is a governmental agency authorized to exercise a

broad array of powers in connection with the development, improvement, and

management of public roads in Waller County, Texas. See id. § 3832.003(b).

Appellants Louis A. Tsakiris Family Partnership, Ltd. and Alex Tsakiris

Family Limited Partnership Ltd. (“Tsakiris Partnerships”) are limited partnerships,

3
owned by Louis A. Tsakiris and his brother, Alex Tsakiris, respectively. In addition

to the Louis A. Tsakiris Family Partnership, Ltd., Louis also owns or controls other

business entities including Igloo Partners #11, LP, Waller XYZ, LP, Blimp Base

Project LP, Katy I-10 Prairie Partners, LP, and Hyas Corporation. At one time, Louis

and his brother Alex, through their various business entities, owned all of the

property inside the District’s boundaries.

Michael Magness is the owner and principal of ML Dev, LP (“ML Dev”), a

limited partnership that develops infrastructure for residential and commercial

developments, such as roads, sewer and water facilities, and detention ponds. Louis

worked with Magness and ML Dev to develop and sell property within the District.

Sometimes, Louis’ entities would sell property to ML Dev first, and then ML Dev

would sell the property to a third party. Louis would help negotiate the sale of these

properties by ML Dev to the third party.

A. The Road Alignment and Construction Agreement

In 2004, Waller County, Texas and various entities1 (“Original Developers”)

entered into a Road Alignment and Construction Agreement (“Road Agreement”)

for the construction of Kingsland Boulevard and Igloo Road (now known as Jordan

Ranch Boulevard) in Waller County, Texas. Pursuant to the Road Agreement, the

1
The entities were Dixie Farm Partners, LLP, Beamer Road Partners, LLP, and
Blimp Base Partners, LLP.

4
Original Developers agreed to pay for the initial cost of constructing two lanes of

the roads, and Waller County agreed to install any future lanes “as traffic warrants”

at its cost.

Over the following years, the parties amended the Road Agreement several

times, each time executing a new modification.

B. The Road Agreement Modifications

In 2007, Waller County, the Original Developers, and Blimp Base Project, LP

(“Blimp Base”), Katy I-10 Prairie Partners, LP (“Katy I-10”), ML Dev, Waller XYZ,

LP (“Waller XYZ”) and Hyas Corporation (“Hyas”) (collectively with the Original

Developers, the “Developers”) executed a Modification of the Road Agreement. As

modified, the agreement obligated the Developers to extend Igloo Road and

Kingsland Boulevard and to fund the cost of the extensions. In exchange, Waller

County agreed to pay Hyas $3,300,000.00 in yearly installments beginning in March

2009, representing half the cost of the extensions.

On October 5, 2009, Waller County and the Developers executed a Second

Modification of the Road Agreement (“Second Modification”), which among other

things, replaced Paragraph 2.1 of the Road Agreement to read:

Dedication of Right of Way. To the extent necessary and appropriate,
the Developers shall dedicate or cause to be dedicated to the County the
right of way necessary for the construction and maintenance of the
Road Improvements. Such dedication shall be completed within sixty
days of the signing of this Second Modification of Road Alignment and
Construction.

5
Also on October 5, 2009, Waller XYZ and Blimp Base executed a 100’ road

easement for the extension of Igloo Road and Kingsland Boulevard to the east of

Igloo Road. At the time, Waller XYZ owned the land comprising the easement.

Waller XYZ transferred its ownership to the Tsakiris Partnerships in 2018.

According to the Tsakiris Partnerships, Waller XYZ and Blimp Base did not

in 2009 execute an easement for the extension of Kingsland Boulevard to the west

of Igloo Road, which the parties refer to as the Kingsland Extension, because “there

was no development in that area at that time” and “agreeing to an easement location

for the Kingsland Extension would have [thus] been premature.” The Tsakiris

Partnerships submitted as evidence in the trial court a “District Landscape

Maintenance Map” dated May 21, 2009, which they explain is a map of the District

prepared by Pate Engineers—the District’s engineer at the time.2 The Tsakiris

Partnerships explain that as reflected in the map, “there was little to no development

in the District or surrounding area at the time.”

At an October 5, 2009 Meeting of the Waller County Commissioners Court,

a majority of the Commissioners voted to approve certain actions taken with regard

to the Second Modification, as reflected in the meeting minutes, which state:

Discuss and take action to approve 2nd Modification of Road Alignment
and Construction Agreement for Igloo Road and Kingsland Boulevard.

2
The Pate Engineer District Landscape Maintenance Map was attached as Exhibit A-
5 to Appellants’ Response in Opposition to the District’s Motion for Summary
Judgment.

6
To modify Section 2.1 to read: Dedication of Right-of-Way: To the
extent necessary and appropriate, the Developers shall dedicate or
cause to be dedicated to the County the right-of-way necessary for the
construction and maintenance of the Road Improvements such
dedication, of 100 feet right-of-way for both Igloo and Kingsland, shall
be completed within 60 days of the signing of this 2 nd Modified
Agreement. Said dedication will include a metes and bounds
description.

The meeting minutes further state: “Discuss and take action to accept right-of-way

easements for portions of Igloo Road and Kingsland Boulevard.”

In September 2012, Waller County and the Developers executed a Third

Modification of the Road Agreement in which they agreed to realign Igloo Road,

release the October 5, 2009 100’ road easement, and execute a new 100’ road

easement in its place.3 Waller XYZ and Blimp Base also granted Waller County a

non-exclusive easement over a 50’ strip of land bordering the western half of the

proposed Igloo Road south of Kingsland Boulevard for the construction of the

eastern half of Igloo Road. The release of the October 5, 2009 100’ road easement,

the September 17, 2012 100’ road easement, and the 50’ easement were recorded in

Waller County’s real property records.

In 2014, Waller County and the Developers executed a Fourth Modification

of the Road Agreement in which they agreed to realign Igloo Road south of the

proposed Kingsland Boulevard, release the September 17, 2012 100’ road easement,

3
The new 100’ road easement is attached as Exhibit 3 to the Third Modification of
the Road Agreement.

7
and execute a new easement reflecting the new alignment for Igloo Road. The

Developers also granted Waller County a non-exclusive easement for the

construction of Igloo Road that included a metes and bounds description. Attached

as Exhibit 1 to the Fourth Modification is a “General Plan for Igloo Road & I-10”

depicting “the alignment for Igloo Road, south of the proposed Kingsland

Boulevard” (“General Plan for Igloo Road”). And Exhibit 3 is a survey prepared by

the District’s surveying company—Windrose Land Services, Inc.—dated July 12,

2012 (“Windrose Survey”), depicting the “non-exclusive easement for the

construction of Igloo Road” granted by the developers to Waller County.4

The Windrose Survey is titled, “Exhibit of Ownership and Easements for

Waller County Improvements District No. 1 Waller County, Texas” and among

other things, it contains an “Easement Table” listing 91 easements by description

and recording document. According to the Tsakiris Partnerships, the Windrose

Survey is evidence that by 2012, “the District had full knowledge of the ownership

of all land and easements affecting the land within its boundaries.” They argue that

the Windrose Survey clearly “show[s] that the 100’ Road Easement signed on

October 5, 20[0]9 was related to the extension of Igloo Road and Kingsland

4
The Fourth Modification provides, “Developers hereby grant [Waller County] a
non-exclusive easement for the construction of Igloo Road. Said easement is
depicted on (Exhibit 3).” And it provides that the parties “agree that the alignment
for Igloo Road, south of the proposed Kingsland Boulevard shall be as depicted on
the General Plan for Igloo Road & I-10, (Exhibit 1).”

8
Boulevard east of Igloo road, [and] not the Kingsland Extension” west of Igloo

Road. They further argue that no easement for the Kingsland Extension is reflected

in the table of easements on the Windrose Survey, further establishing that the

Tsakiris Partnerships had not granted an easement for the proposed Kingsland

Extension. They contend that the “survey shows the owners of the land wherein the

proposed Kingsland Extension would run as Igloo Partners #11, LP, Waller XYZ,

and Katy 1-10 unencumbered by any easements.”

Sometime in 2020, Waller County stopped paying Hyas under the Road

Agreement. On October 7, 2020, the Developers terminated the Road Agreement

due to Waller County’s alleged failure to comply with its payment obligations under

the agreement.

C. ML Dev’s Master Sales Agreement

In 2008, ML Dev and the District executed a Master Sales Agreement and

Lease of Facilities (“ML Dev MSA”), under which ML Dev agreed to construct

roads, water supply facilities, waste disposal facilities, and drainage facilities within

the District’s boundaries and to sell or lease the facilities to the District. The District

in turn agreed to obtain bonds to pay for the facilities and roads once the District

accrued enough taxable value to issue the bonds.

In 2010, ML Dev and the District amended the ML Dev MSA to, according

to Magness, introduce a revenue-sharing mechanism whereby ML Dev and another

9
developer would be entitled to bonds supported by 30% of the taxable value of any

third-party developer’s property. The amendment defined the projects that would

be subject to the ML Dev MSA to include “ROADS/ROWS” and “LAND &

EASEMENTS DEDICATED FOR PROJECTS” and it further stated that the District

would be responsible for reimbursing 100% of ML Dev’s reimbursable costs for

these defined projects. The District and ML Dev later executed a second amendment

to the ML Dev MSA to include a provision whereby a portion of the taxable assessed

valuation of future development projects would be used to issue bonds to reimburse

ML Dev.

D. The BGM Land Investments, Ltd Tract

In 2018, Igloo Partners #11, LP (“Igloo Partners”) sold to BGM Land

Investments, Ltd. (“BGM”) 107 acres of undeveloped property west of Igloo Road

and south of the Kingsland Extension (“BGM Tract”).5

In conjunction with that sale, Louis responded to questions proposed by BGM

regarding the portion of the Kingsland Extension bordering the BGM Tract. On

September 11, 2018, BGM’s consulting engineer, Justin Wagner (“Wagner”), sent

an email to John Wallace (“Wallace”), the District’s general counsel, with a letter

5
Igloo Partners and BGM executed a “Commercial Contract - Unimproved Property”
agreement in July 2018, which they later amended to substitute Igloo Partners,
Waller XYZ, and Katy I-10 as the sellers.

10
attached requesting information regarding the proposed BGM sale. Louis was

copied on the letter. In the letter, Wagner stated:

Kingsland Boulevard Items Needing Confirmation and/or Request:

1) Will the appropriate land owner’s (sic) confirm the alignment of
Kingsland Boulevard is set based on information provided to
purchaser? Also, will the appropriate land owner’s (sic) grant and
convey necessary easements and/or ROW needed for design and
construction.

Wallace forwarded Wagner’s email and letter to Magness, owner of ML Dev.

On September 12, 2018, Louis emailed his response to Wagner’s letter to

Andrew Loessin and Ryan Getz with Ward, Getz & Associates, LLP (“WGA”)—

the District’s engineer. In his response to Wagner’s request for information

regarding Kingsland Boulevard, Louis stated:

The ROW for Kingsland Boulevard has been dedicated to Waller
County. The Seller has confirmed that the Seller will not attempt to re-
align Kingsland through any of the property BGM Land Investments
has under contract. There may be a re-alignment west of the subject 140
acre tract. The land owner has indicated that he does not believe any
easements or ROW are necessary, but will provide them if they are in
fact necessary.

Magness emailed Louis’ response to Wallace with the District.

According to the Tsakiris Partnerships, at that time, “Louis mistakenly

believed that the right-of-way had been dedicated to the County,” but that regardless,

“the owners intended to provide the requested easements for the right-of-way.” But,

the Tsakiris Partnerships argue, neither Katy 1-10, Waller XYZ, nor Igloo Partners

11
“intended to give away their property for free.” And “had the County complied with

the Road Agreement,” the Tsakiris Partnerships “would have transferred the

easements to the County as required under that agreement.”

E. The Ross Agreement

In 2018, ML Dev and P150, LLC (“P150”), an entity affiliated with Ross

Dress for Less, Inc. (“Ross”), executed an Agreement of Purchase and Sale of Real

Property (“Ross PSA”) under which ML Dev agreed to sell to P150 250 acres of

undeveloped land just south of I-10 and west of Igloo Road/Jordan Ranch Boulevard

(“Ross Tract”). Section 8.5 of the Ross PSA obligated ML Dev to (a) “[e]xtend

Kingsland Blvd from [Igloo Road/]Jordan Ranch Road to Woods Road”—the

Kingsland Extension—at its own expense and (b) to “[r]ealign Kingsland Boulevard

to a position north of its present location, subject to the approval of Waller, County,

Seller and Purchaser.”6 Attached to the Ross PSA at Exhibit A is a diagram of the

Ross Tract that, according to the District, shows “Kingsland Boulevard realigned.”

The Ross PSA states

Attached hereto as Exhibit “A” is a plan of the Developable Property
showing the intersection of Kingsland Boulevard and Woods Road,
with Kingsland Boulevard realigned, but subject to governmental
approval. Seller has approved such realignment, and Purchaser
understands that such realignment is subject to governmental approval.

6
Section 8.5 further states that “condition (b) shall not be binding upon Seller unless
Buyer: (i) notifies Seller in writing on or before October 1, 2018 [and] (ii) deposits
an additional Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) with Seller on or prior
to December 10, 2018.”

12
According to Magness, ML Dev intended to purchase the land necessary for

the Kingsland Extension from the Tsakiris Partnerships, which the Tsakiris

Partnerships had agreed to provide, and ML Dev would have been entitled to

reimbursement from the District for the cost of the land it purchased from the

Tsakiris Partnerships and construction of the Kingsland Extension.

On October 17, 2018, Magness with ML Dev emailed Wallace with the

District that ML Dev’s sale to P150 was “getting to the point where the Buyer [P150]

will need to have a reimbursement agreement,” and on October 21, 2018, Magness

provided Wallace with contact information for P150’s legal counsel. P150 and the

District began negotiating a development financing agreement pursuant to which the

District would reimburse P150 for its costs incurred in building water and sewer

infrastructure within the District. On April 22, 2019, the District and Ross executed

a Development Financing Agreement (“Ross DFA”).7 Under the Ross DFA, the

District agreed to construct the Kingsland Extension at its sole cost.8

7
In June 2019, ML Dev sued the District claiming it “violat[ed] the [ML Dev] MSA
by contracting with Ross to use 100% of the taxable value from Ross’ development
to reimburse Ross when the District had agreed in the MSA to use 30% of that value
to reimburse ML Dev.”
8
Section 28 of the Ross DFA provides that “[a]s additional consideration for this
Agreement, and to provide paved access to Tract A, the District agreed to construct
a 4-lane divided roadway [for] the portion of Kingsland Boulevard between [Igloo
Road/]Jordan Ranch Boulevard and Woods Road . . . .The costs of the Kingsland
Improvements shall be borne solely by the District and shall in no way be counted
against any reimbursement due to Developer hereunder.”

13
During negotiations of the Ross DFA, Wallace sent Magness an email dated

November 12, 2018 asking who would be providing the land (right-of-way) for the

Kingsland Extension and Magness responded, “We have dedicated the road

easements to the County.”

In early 2019, the District hired WGA to prepare a formal survey and plat of

the realigned Kingsland Extension. On March 4, 2019, Getz sent an email to

Magness asking, “[W]hen did you grant the easement to Waller County [for the

Kingsland Extension]” and Magness replied, “About ten yrs. two amendments I

think. I know in morning.”

On March 5, 2019, Louis sent an email providing Magness a synopsis of the

Roadway Agreement and modifications, stating that under the Second Modification,

the “Developer agreed to dedicated ROW.” The same day, Magness forwarded

Louis’ email to Getz attaching copies of the Roadway Agreement and all four

modifications. On March 22, 2019, Magness emailed Getz with a copy to Louis,

stating

Before we get into the platting of Kingsland, we need to make sure of
a couple items.

Contractually ML Dev is not building Kingsland.

ML Dev has agreed with P150 to relocate the road after closing.

There is a metes and bounds description of the existing easement. There
will need to be a new easement and metes and bounds of the new
Kingsland alignment. The county will need to abandon old easement

14
and accept new. I would think this needs to be done before platting.
And all is post closing.

On May 8, 2019, ML Dev and P150 executed a Third Amendment to the Ross

PSA (“Third Amended Ross PSA”) in which they agreed to remove the obligation

of ML Dev under Section 8.5 to build the Kingsland Extension or realign Kingsland

Boulevard. P150 subsequently assigned all its interest and obligations as the

purchaser under the Third Amended Ross PSA to Ross, and Ross and ML Dev closed

on the purchase of the Ross Tract in May 2019.

In August 2019, Getz with WGA informed Magness that Ross needed an

easement from ML Dev over land adjacent to its detention area to properly access

that area. According to the Tsakiris Partnerships, ML Dev granted the requested

“drainage easement” where “Ross released ML Dev from any existing or future

obligation to provide them with any other easements or right-of- ways.”

According to the District, the Tsakiris Partnerships’ representations that an

easement existed over Kingsland Boulevard continued. The District points to an

email dated October 3, 2019 from Louis where he represented to WGA that “there

is an existing easement for Kingsland Boulevard, metes and bounds or diagram.”

On February 21, 2020, WGA emailed Louis, attaching a final plat of the realigned

Kingsland Boulevard, asking who would sign the plat for the Tsakiris Partnerships.

Magness replied, with a copy to Louis, stating, “The owners will sign as landowners

only.”

15
In June and July 2020, WGA sent Louis a final plat of right of way for the

Kingsland Extension to be executed by the Tsakiris Partnerships. WGA informed

Louis that Waller County had approved the final plat, but the Tsakiris Partnerships

declined to sign the plat.

F. Condemnation Proceeding

In October 2020, the Board of Directors for the District held a special meeting

at which it authorized “[p]roceedings in [e]minent [d]omain to acquire easement or

rights-of-way” over the “Kingsland Boulevard street dedication.”

In February 2021, the District filed its Original Petition in Condemnation in

the County Court of Law of Waller County against the Tsakiris Partnerships

“seeking condemnation of fee simple title to approximately 15 acres for access,

construction, maintenance, and use of Kingsland Boulevard as a public right of

way”—the Kingsland Extension. Special Commissioners were appointed to hear

the condemnation action. On March 24, 2021, the Special Commissioners awarded

the Tsakiris Partnerships $1,333,020.00 in damages for the District’s “condemnation

of the fee simple title to” the Kingsland Extension. The District deposited the award

into the registry of the court and requested issuance of a writ of possession to the

condemned property, which the court granted.

16
The Tsakiris Partnerships objected to the award and requested a trial de novo.

On motion of the District, the County Court at Law transferred the District’s

condemnation case to District Court in June 2021.

In its First Amended Original Petition, filed in the District Court on September

20, 2021, the District sought “(1) to condemn only an easement for Kingsland

Boulevard (not fee simple title) and (2) declarations that the easement existed by

estoppel and express dedication, and therefore, the Tsakiris Partnerships were not

entitled to compensation for the easement.”

On July 29, 2022, the District filed its Third Amended Petition, the live

pleading when the District Court signed its Final Judgment on October 25, 2022, the

subject of this appeal. In its Third Amended Petition, the District asserted claims

for (1) statutory condemnation, and (2) declaratory judgment. The District sought

to acquire, through its eminent domain authority, a judgment of condemnation

granting to the District a permanent easement and right-of-way over Kingsland

Boulevard for purposes of construction, installation, operation and maintenance of

the Kingsland Extension.

The District also sought declarations that the Tsakiris Partnerships were

entitled to no compensation because (1) the Tsakiris Partnerships had dedicated the

easement for the Kingsland Extension to public use by express dedication, (2) the

Tsakiris Partnerships had dedicated the easement for the Kingsland Extension to

17
public use by implied dedication, and (3) the easement for the Kingsland Extension

existed by estoppel and thus, although the Tsakiris Partnerships “hold legal title to

the Property, they did not acquire and do not hold equitable ownership of the

Easement.” According to the District:

Express and/or implied dedication occurred because: the words (written
and/or oral), conduct, acts, and/or omissions of prior owners expressly
and/or implicitly indicated that such owners intended, offered and
agreed to dedicate the road to public use, they were competent to do so,
the District and third parties relied on such acts and they and the public
will benefit from the dedication, and there was an offer and acceptance
of the dedication. The Easement was created by estoppel because: prior
owners and the Defendants made representations that the Easement
would be or had been dedicated to the public, and such representations
were believed and acted upon by the District, Waller County, and the
public. After the Easement was created, in December 2018, prior
owners transferred the Property to Defendants at no charge. Therefore,
the Easement existed before Defendants acquired the Property and
Defendants’ subsequent conduct further effected an easement by
estoppel. Consequently, Defendants are entitled to no compensation for
condemnation of the Easement by the District.9

G. Summary Judgment

In September 2022, the District moved for summary judgment on its claims

for statutory condemnation and declaratory judgment based on express dedication

and easement by estoppel.10 In its motion, the District argued that it conclusively

9
The District alleged that “the Easement was created under the doctrine of easement
by estoppel because: (1) Defendants and/or their agents represented to the District
the Easement had been dedicated and further easement would be provided if
necessary for realignment; (2) the District believed the representation; and (3) the
District relied upon the representation.”
10
The District did not move for summary judgment on its claim of implied dedication.

18
had established that Louis and Magness, on behalf of the Tsakiris Partnerships’

predecessors in interest—the Developers—had created an easement over the

Kingsland Extension—the Kingsland Easement—by express dedication and by

estoppel. According to the District, “the indisputable evidence show[ed] the original

Kingsland Easement was expressly dedicated to the County in 2009, years before

the Tsakiris Partnerships acquired bare legal title” and “in September 2018, [Louis]

and Magness represented that the original Kingsland Easement had been dedicated

to the County and the landowner would provide the easement needed to realign

Kingsland Boulevard.” The District argued that as a result, when “[Louis] and

Magness transferred bare legal title to the Tsakiris Partnerships in December 2018,

they could reserve no rights incompatible with the Kingsland Easement already

created by express dedication and by estoppel.” The District also argued that the

evidence conclusively established its claim for easement by estoppel because “after

the Tsakiris Partnerships acquired bare legal title,” “[Louis] and Magness acted for

[the Tsakiris Partnerships in] sell[ing] the [Ross Tract] to Ross,” and “Tsakiris and

Magness continued to represent to the District that the ‘new easement’ would be

substituted for the ‘old easement’ to realign the western end of Kingsland Boulevard

[to] avoid encroachment upon the Ross Tract.”

The District asked the trial court to grant their summary judgment motion and

declare that:

19
(1) The Kingsland Easement is accurately described on the plat that
is [District’s] Exhibit 32 (Px32) in the Appendix to this Motion;

(2) The Kingsland Easement exists by express dedication and by
estoppel; and,

(3) Therefore, the District is entitled to condemnation of the
Kingsland Easement at no cost and Defendants are entitled to no
compensation for such condemnation.

The Tsakiris Partnerships argued that the District was not entitled to summary

judgment because the Tsakiris Partnerships’ predecessors in interest had not

dedicated the Kingsland Extension to Waller County in 2009. They argued that the

Developers had agreed only to dedicate the right of way necessary for the

construction and maintenance of the road improvement defined in the Road

Agreement “[t]o the extent necessary and appropriate,” and in October 2009, neither

the Developers nor Waller County believed it was “necessary and appropriate” to

execute an easement for the proposed Kingsland Extension, because there was no

development in that area at the time. They argued that to the extent any such

dedication to Waller County had been created in 2009, it was unenforceable because

Waller County had not accepted any such easement, and Waller County had not

complied with Section 281 of the Texas Transportation Code, which they argued

was applicable. The Tsakiris Partnerships also argued that the Kingsland Extension

over which the District sought condemnation was located on property different than

the extension proposed in 2009. The District further contended that the District had

20
not established the elements of its easement by estoppel claim as a matter of law

because the representations on which the District relied had not been made to the

District and the District could not have relied on Magness’ and Louis’ statements

that the easement for the Kingsland Extension had been dedicated to Waller County

because the District knew that no such easement had been granted.11

The trial court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment on its

statutory condemnation and declaratory judgment claims and entered a Final

Judgment awarding the District possession and ownership of the Kingsland

Easement and declaring that the “Kingsland Easement exists as a public right of way

by express dedication and by estoppel” and thus the Tsakiris Partnerships “are

entitled to no compensation for the District’s condemnation of such easement.” The

Final Judgment states that the Kingsland Easement “is accurately described on the

plat attached hereto as Exhibit 1, which is part of Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32 in the

Appendix to [the District’s] Motion for Summary Judgment.”

11
The District attached to its motion for summary judgment, among other things, the
October 5, 2009 minutes from the Waller County Commissioners meeting, the Road
Agreement and Modifications, emails among Appellants, the County, and the
District, excerpts from the depositions of Louis and Magness, and declarations from
John Wallace, Ryan Getz, Douglas Postle, and Jeffery Parsons.
Appellants attached to their response Louis’ declaration, the Road Agreement and
Modifications, the October 5, 2009 100’ Road Easement, the May 21, 2009 Pate
Engineers District Map, a 2012 release of easement and grants of new easements,
the July 10, 2012 Windrose Survey of District Ownership and Easements, the BGM
contract and amendment, emails from Michael Boyd to Louis, two letters to Judge
Duhon, Magness’ declaration, and the ML Dev MSA and amendments.

21
This appeal followed.

Summary Judgment

We review a trial court’s order granting summary judgment de novo. Lujan

v. Navistar, Inc., 555 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2018). The movant on a traditional motion

for summary judgment has the burden of showing that no genuine issue of material

fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See TEX. R. CIV. P.

166a(c); Lujan, 555 S.W.3d at 84. If the movant satisfies its initial burden on the

issues expressly presented in the motion, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to

present to the trial court any issues or evidence that would preclude summary

judgment. See Lujan, 555 S.W.3d at 84.

To decide whether issues of material fact preclude summary judgment,

evidence favorable to the non-moving party must be taken as true, every reasonable

inference must be indulged in its favor, and any doubts resolved in its favor. Id.; see

also Sandberg v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., 600 S.W.3d 511, 521 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2020, pet. denied). The movant must conclusively establish its right to judgment as

a matter of law. See id. A matter is conclusively established if reasonable people

could not differ as to the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. City of Keller

v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 816 (Tex. 2005); see also Buck v. Palmer, 381 S.W.3d

525, 527 (Tex. 2012) (“Undisputed evidence may be conclusive of the absence of a

22
material fact issue, but only if reasonable people could not differ in their conclusions

as to that evidence.”).

When, as here, a trial court grants a motion for summary judgment without

specifying the grounds for granting the motion, we must uphold the trial court’s

judgment if any of the grounds advanced in the motion are meritorious. Cmty.

Health Sys. Prof’l Servs. Corp. v. Hansen, 525 S.W.3d 671, 680 (Tex. 2017); see

also McCoy v. Rogers, 240 S.W.3d 267, 271 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007,

pet. denied) (stating if order does not identify ground on which the trial court relied

in granting summary judgment, appellant must negate all grounds for summary

judgment on appeal).

A plaintiff moving for summary judgment is not under any obligation to

negate affirmative defenses. Fortitude Energy, LLC v. Sooner Pipe LLC, 564

S.W.3d 167, 180 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.). An affirmative

defense prevents the granting of a summary judgment for the plaintiff on its own

claim if each element of the affirmative defense is supported by summary judgment

evidence. Id. A party raising an affirmative defense in opposition to a summary

judgment motion must either (1) present a disputed fact issue on the opposing party’s

failure to satisfy its own summary judgment burden of proof, or (2) establish the

existence of a fact issue on each element of the affirmative defense. Id.

23
Standing

The Tsakiris Partnerships argue in their first issue that the District lacks

standing to pursue its claims for express dedication and easement by estoppel

because any purported public dedication of the Kingsland Easement was made to

Waller County, not the District. They argue that as a result, only Waller County has

standing to enforce the purported easement, and the District cannot obtain a

judgment for claims belonging to Waller County—a governmental entity distinct

from the District that was not a party to the condemnation proceedings.

The District responds it has standing to enforce the public dedication of the

Kingsland Easement pursuant to the Texas Transportation Code and Local

Government Code. It argues both statutes grant the District the power to acquire

property for the construction of roads and thus standing to sue in connection with

those powers, including the ability to obtain declarations under the Texas

Declaratory Judgment Act connected to the exercise of its eminent domain power.

A. Standard of Review

A plaintiff must have both standing and capacity to bring suit. Pike v. Tex.

EMC Mgmt. LLC, 610 S.W.3d 763, 775 (Tex. 2020); Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc. v.

Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2005). Standing addresses whether a party has

a sufficient relationship with the lawsuit so as to have a justiciable interest in the

outcome, whereas capacity is a procedural issue addressing the personal

24
qualifications of a party to litigate. Austin Nursing Ctr., 171 S.W.3d at 848 (internal

quotations omitted). “A plaintiff has standing when it is personally aggrieved,

regardless of whether it is acting with legal authority; a party has capacity when it

has the legal authority to act, regardless of whether it has a justiciable interest in the

controversy.” Pike, 610 S.W.3d at 775 (quoting Nootsie, Ltd. v. Williamson Cnty.

Appraisal Dist., 925 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. 1996) (emphasis in original)).

B. Analysis

In its Third Amended Petition, the District asserted a claim for statutory

condemnation of the Kingsland Extension, and it separately requested declarations

that the Tsakiris Partnerships were entitled to no compensation for the condemned

property based on express dedication and easement by estoppel. The Tsakiris

Partnerships argue that the District lacks standing because the District’s claims for

express dedication and estoppel do not belong to it—they belong to Waller County.

The District is a governmental agency authorized to exercise a broad array of

powers in connection with the development, improvement, and management of

public roads in Waller County, including the authority to acquire property for a road

facility and to construct permanent improvements, and institute and prosecute suits

as needed to further its purposes.12 Whether the District can assert a claim on behalf

12
See TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 382.004(a) (authorizing counties to create public
improvement districts); id. § 375.092(f) (“A district may acquire, construct,

25
of Waller County in furtherance of the District’s authority to acquire and construct

road facilities presents an issue of capacity, not standing. See generally Pike, 610

S.W.3d at 779 (holding “whether a claim brought by a partner actually belongs to

the partnership is likewise a matter of capacity because it is a challenge to the

partner’s legal authority to bring the suit”); Brooks v. Jones, 578 S.W.2d 669, 674

(Tex. 1979) (“A public dedication is enforceable by the public authorities of the

state, county or municipality involved.”).

Unlike standing, capacity is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit but rather

a procedural defense that must be raised by verified pleading in the trial court.

Austin Nursing Ctr., 171 S.W.3d at 849. Because the Tsakiris Partnerships did not

challenge the District’s capacity in the trial court, they cannot raise it for the first

time on appeal. See id. (stating challenge to party’s capacity must be raised by

verified pleading in trial court and cannot be raised for first time on appeal).

To the extent the Tsakiris Partnerships argue that the District cannot enforce

the Second Modification—the written document purportedly accomplishing the

complete, develop, own, operate, and maintain permanent improvements and
provide services that directly benefit property in the district, regardless of whether
the improvements or services are located inside or outside its boundaries.”); id.
§ 375.092(c) (“A district may sue and be sued in courts of competent
jurisdiction. . .”); TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 441.101(a)(1) (stating district may “acquire
a road facility, acquire property for a road facility, and construct or improve a road
facility, inside or outside district boundaries”); id. § 441.101(a)(6) (stating district
may “exercise other powers and duties to accomplish the purposes for which the
district was created”).

26
dedication—because they are not a party to the modification, that also presents an

issue of capacity, not standing. See Pike, 610 S.W.3d at 779 n.19 (“Texas law is

clear, and this court has previously held numerous times, that a challenge to a party’s

privity of contract is a challenge to capacity, not standing. Whether a party is entitled

to sue on a contract is not truly a standing issue because it does not affect the

jurisdiction of the court; it is, instead, a decision on the merits.”) (quoting Highland

Credit Opportunities CDO, L.P. v. UBS AG, 451 S.W.3d 508, 516 (Tex. App.—

Dallas 2014, no pet.)).

The Tsakiris Partnerships also argue that Louis’ and Magness’ purported

representations about the existence of an easement for the Kingsland Extension and

promises to provide further easements should realignment be necessary were made

to Waller County and not the District, and therefore the District lacks standing to

assert a claim for easement by estoppel on its own behalf. This too presents an issue

of capacity, not standing, because it challenges the merits of the District’s estoppel

claim as opposed to whether the District has a “justiciable interest” in the existence

of an easement created by estoppel. See Austin Nursing Ctr., 171 S.W.3d at 848

(“The issue of standing focuses on whether a party has a sufficient relationship with

the lawsuit so as to have a justiciable interest in its outcome, whereas the issue of

capacity is conceived of as a procedural issue dealing with the personal

qualifications of a party to litigate.”) (internal quotations omitted); see also Tex.

27
Lottery Comm’n v. Scientific Games Int’l, Inc., 99 S.W.3d 376, 380 (Tex. App.—

Austin 2003, pet. denied) (stating, to show standing, person must show justiciable

interest in form of “an actual or imminent threat of injury peculiar to one’s

circumstances and not suffered by the public generally”).13

Relying on Sabine & E. T. R. Co. v. Gulf & I. R. Co., 46 S.W. 784 (Tex. 1898),

Maddox v. Vantage Energy, LLC, 361 S.W.3d 752, 754 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

2012, pet. denied), and Allen v. Texas Children’s Health Plan, 649 S.W.3d 830, 833

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2022, no pet.), the Tsakiris Partnerships argue the

District lacks standing to bring claims for express dedication and easement by

estoppel because any purported dedication in 2009 was made to Waller County, not

the District, and the Tsakiris Partnerships did not make any representations to the

District.14 Citing to Sabine, the Tsakiris Partnerships argue the District cannot

13
Even if the Tsakiris Partnerships were challenging the District’s standing, they
would not prevail because the District has a “justiciable interest” in the existence of
an easement created by dedication or estoppel. Resolution of either issue in the
affirmative will determine whether the Tsakiris Partnerships have a compensable
interest in the condemned Kingsland Easement. The District’s threatened injury is
thus fairly traceable to the purported express easement or easement by estoppel, and
the threatened injury is likely to be redressed by the District’s claims which will
determine whether the Tsakiris Partnerships have a compensable interest in the
condemned Kingsland Easement. See Heckman v. Williamson Cnty., 369 S.W.3d
137, 155 (Tex. 2012) (stating standing requires plaintiff to have concrete and
particularized injury that is actual or imminent and not hypothetical, be fairly
traceable to defendant’s conduct, and likely to be redressed by requested relief).
14
The Tsakiris Partnerships also argue that the District’s motion for summary
judgment “failed to state the ‘specific grounds’ for awarding condemnation of the
purported easement—without any compensation” and thus the District was not

28
enforce a dedication made to Waller County because “a dedication of property to

one entity for a public purpose does not equate to a dedication to a different entity

or for a different public purpose.” See Sabine, 46 S.W. at 786 (stating “[s]ince the

[road, right of way, and land acquired for yard purposes by one railroad company]

is already devoted to public use . . ., it is not to the interest of the public to destroy

that use for the convenience or interest of another [railroad company] and to establish

simply another public use”). The Tsakiris Partnerships’ reliance on Sabine is

misplaced because Sabine does not address whether one governmental entity can

enforce a dedication of property for a public purpose made to another governmental

entity, and, unlike in Sabine, the District condemned the Kingsland Easement for the

same purpose the District asserts the easement was previously dedicated to the

public—to be used as a public roadway.

The Tsakiris Partnerships’ reliance on Maddox and Allen is likewise

misplaced. In Maddox, Maddox and other landowners sued Vantage Energy for

breach of contract and promissory estoppel seeking to compel Vantage to offer them

oil and gas leases. 361 S.W.3d at 754–56. The landowners, who did not dispute that

Vantage had made no promises to them, argued that Vantage was obligated to offer

entitled to summary judgment on this basis. Although included in its first issue
challenging the District’s standing, this argument, which was not raised in the trial
court, does not present a question of standing. Furthermore, the District moved for
summary judgment on its claims for express dedication and estoppel and the trial
court granted summary judgment on both claims.

29
leases to the landowners under the theory of promissory estoppel based on promises

Vantage allegedly had made to the Southwest Fort Worth Alliance. Id. at 761. The

court held the landowners lacked standing to assert a claim for promissory estoppel

because the summary judgment evidence conclusively established that Vantage had

made no promises to the landowners and thus the landowners were “not ‘promisees’

who [could] assert the independent claim of promissory estoppel against Vantage.”

Id. The court also rejected the landowners’ argument that they were third-party

beneficiaries of a contract between Vantage and the SFWA. See id. at 759. Maddox

is also inapplicable because the District is not asserting that it is a third-party

beneficiary to a contract, and, as later discussed, the evidence reflects that, unlike in

Maddox, the Tsakiris Partnerships made representations about the existence of an

easement and promises to grant further easements directly to the District in 2018 and

2019.

In Allen, the court held the plaintiffs had not overcome the presumption

against third-party beneficiary status, and they therefore lacked standing to sue for

breach of the contract. 649 S.W.3d at 836, 841 (stating “third-party beneficiary

status implicates standing and jurisdiction”). Allen is inapposite because the District

did not assert third-party beneficiary status to pursue its claims.

We overrule the Tsakiris Partnerships’ first issue.

30
Chapter 281 of the Texas Transportation Code

In their second issue, the Tsakiris Partnerships argue the trial court erred in

granting summary judgment on the District’s express dedication and easement by

estoppel claims because if the Kingsland Extension was dedicated to Waller County

in October 2009, as the District asserts, Waller County was required to comply with

Chapter 281 of the Texas Transportation Code to secure the dedication. Because

Waller County allegedly did not comply with Chapter 281 when the purported

dedication was made in 2009, the Tsakiris Partnerships argue the District’s claim for

express dedication is precluded. They also argue that Chapter 281 prohibits an

easement by estoppel.

The District responds that Chapter 281 applies only to an acquisition of a

“private road” by a “county.” Because the District is not a county and there is no

evidence that the Kingsland Extension was a “private road” in 2009, it argues

Chapter 281 is not applicable.

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

Chapter 281 of the Texas Transportation Code governs how a county may

acquire a public interest in a private road. Effective September 1, 1981, a county

with a population of 50,000 or less can acquire a public interest in a “private road”

only by (1) purchase, (2) condemnation, (3) dedication, or (4) a court’s final

judgment of adverse possession. TEX. TRANSP. CODE §§ 281.001 & 281.002; see

31
Pinebrook Properties, Ltd. v. Brookhaven Lake Prop. Owners Ass’n, 77 S.W.3d 487,

503–04 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, pet. denied) (stating “Texas Legislature

changed the common law and abolished the theory of implied dedication of roads to

public use in counties with a population of 50,000 or less” when it passed Chapter

281). Section 281.003(a) provides that for purposes of Chapter 281, a dedication

must be “an explicit voluntary grant of the use of a private road for public purposes”

that is “communicated in writing to the commissioners court of the county in which

the real property is located.” TEX. TRANSP. CODE § 281.003(a). A county may not

assert a public interest in a private road until the county complies with Sections

281.005 and 281.006. See id. § 281.006.

Section 281.005 states:

(a) After a public interest in a private road is acquired under this
chapter, the commissioners court of the county in which the road
is located shall record by resolution the interest in the records of
the court.

(b) The resolution must state:

(1) the date on which the interest was acquired; and

(2) the circumstance by which the interest was acquired.

Id. § 281.005. Section 281.006 in turn provides that a “commissioners court may

not assert a public interest in a private road” until the court complies with Section

281.005 and “gives written notice to the owner of the road in person or by registered

mail . . . .” Id. § 281.006.

32
B. Analysis

The Tsakiris Partnerships argue that the declarations from Magness and Louis

submitted in response to the District’s motion for summary judgment establish that

in 2009, when the purported dedication was made to Waller County, the Kingsland

Extension included private roads. Consequently, because Waller County did not

provide them with notice as required by Section 218.006, they argue Waller County

was thus precluded from asserting a public interest in the Kingsland Extension.

In his declaration, Magness states that in 2009, the “proposed Kingsland

Extension included existing, unpaved, private roads that were being used by the

property owners to access the property” and these roads are visible “on the May 21,

2009 District map prepared by Pate Engineers.” According to Magness,

A private, unpaved road existed that provided access from Woods Road
to the east which ran directly across the western most portion of the
proposed Kingsland Extension. Further, several private, unpaved roads
provided access to the north from this road. These north/south roads
intersected the proposed Kingsland Extension as well. Further, there
was a private, unpaved access road running west from the proposed
Igloo Road extension that was within the eastern most portion of the
Kingsland Extension. . . Neither I nor the Developers ever received
notice from the Commissioners Court of the County, either in person,
or by registered mail, that it was asserting a public interest in the
proposed Kingsland Extension or any of the existing roads that were in
existence at that time.

Louis, who made identical statements in his declaration, asserted that neither he nor

any of the Developers “ever received notice from the Commissioners Court of the

County, either in person, or by registered mail, that it was asserting a public interest

33
in the proposed Kingsland Extension or any of the existing roads that were in

existence at that time.” In Wallace’s declaration, which the District submitted in

support of its motion for summary judgment, Wallace stated that construction on the

Kingsland Extension was not scheduled to begin until the summer of 2020.

The District argues that Louis’ and Magness’ declarations stating that

“unidentified private roadways” intersected the Kingsland Extension provide “no

evidence that the Kingsland Boulevard Easement was ever a ‘private road.’” In the

trial court, the District argued that the Pate Engineer’s May 2009 survey on which

the Tsakiris Partnerships relied actually “reveals that none of the route identified as

the Kingsland Extension included any private roads,” but instead “all the land at

issue was undeveloped land.” According to the District, the Tsakiris Partnerships

admitted in their response to its summary judgment motion that the Kingsland

Easement “was a proposed, private road before [the District] condemned the

Kingsland Extension.” The District also argues that in opposition to its motion for

summary judgment, the Tsakiris Partnerships submitted the Windrose Survey and

the General Plan for Igloo Road (both exhibits to the Fourth Modification of the

Road Agreement) and neither depicts a “private road, only the realigned [Kingsland]

easement.”

The Tsakiris Partnerships pleaded Chapter 281 as an affirmative defense to

the District’s express dedication and easement by estoppel claims and they raised

34
this defense in opposition to the District’s summary judgment motion. An

affirmative defense prevents the granting of a summary judgment for the plaintiff on

its own claim if each element of the affirmative defense is supported by summary

judgment evidence. Fortitude Energy, LLC v. Sooner Pipe LLC, 564 S.W.3d 167,

180 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no pet.). A plaintiff moving for summary

judgment is not under any obligation to negate affirmative defenses. Id. A party

raising an affirmative defense in opposition to a summary judgment motion must

either (1) present a disputed fact issue on the movant’s failure to satisfy its own

summary judgment burden of proof, or (2) establish at least the existence of a fact

issue on each element of its affirmative defense. Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Nabors

Drilling USA, Inc., 106 S.W.3d 118, 124 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet.

denied).

Given the evidence presented on this issue, at most, Louis’ and Magness’

declarations established there were private roads crossing portions of the Kingsland

Extension in 2009. But there is no evidence establishing that the Kingsland

Extension was a “private road” in 2009 when the Developers purportedly dedicated

it to Waller County in the Second Modification. The summary judgment reflects

that the Kingsland Extension was merely a proposed public roadway in 2009 and,

according to Wallace, the construction of the Kingsland Extension was not

scheduled to begin until years later in 2020.

35
Chapter 281 thus did not preclude summary judgment in favor of the District

because the Tsakiris Partnerships did not present evidence that the Kingsland

Extension was a private road in 2009, when the easement was purportedly dedicated

to Waller County. See id. (stating party raising affirmative defense in opposition to

summary judgment motion must establish at least existence of fact issue on each

element of affirmative defense).

We overrule the Tsakiris Partnerships’ second issue.

Easement by Estoppel

In their third issue, the Tsakiris Partnerships argue the trial court erred in

granting summary judgment on the District’s claim of easement by estoppel because

there is no evidence that Louis and Magness made any purported representations to

the District, and there are questions of material fact as to whether the District

believed and relied to its detriment on the purported representations.

The District responds that the trial court did not err because the summary

judgment evidence conclusively established that Louis and Magness represented to

Wallace and Getz in 2018 and 2019 that an easement for the Kingsland Extension

had been dedicated to Waller County and that further easements would be provided

if necessary for realignment of the original easement. According to the District, the

declarations from Wallace and Getz as well as the Ross DFA established that the

District believed the representations and relied on them to its detriment because it

36
commissioned and paid for surveys and plats and executed the Ross DFA in April

2019, agreeing to construct the Kingsland Easement at its own cost.

A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

An easement is the privilege to use another person’s tract of land for some

limited purpose. LaTaste Enter. v. City of Addison, 115 S.W.3d 730, 735 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2003, pet. denied). The tract of land on which the easement is

imposed is the servient estate and the tract of land benefitted by the easement is the

dominant estate. See Drye Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc., 364 S.W.2d 196, 207 (Tex.

1962); Hazzani, LLC v. Richardson Bus. Ctr., Ltd., No. 05-18-00346-CV, 2019 WL

3244175, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 19, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Generally, to be enforceable, easements must be in writing. See Hazzani,

LLC, 2019 WL 3244175, at *5; see also Storms v. Tuck, 579 S.W.2d 447, 451 (Tex.

1979). An easement by estoppel, also known as easement in pais, is an exception

designed to prevent injustice and protect innocent parties from fraud. Storms, 579

S.W.2d at 451; see also S. Plains Lamesa R.R., Ltd. v. Heinrich, 280 S.W.3d 357,

361 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, no pet.) (stating equitable doctrine of easement by

estoppel is also known as easement in pais and doctrine is exception to requirement

that easements must be in writing to be enforceable). Easement by estoppel is a

doctrine under which “the owner of the alleged servient estate may be estopped to

deny the existence of an easement by making representations that have been acted

37
upon by the holder of the alleged dominant estate.” Horner v. Heather, 397 S.W.3d

321, 325 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2013, no pet.). The doctrine is grounded on the notion

that justice forbids one to gainsay his own acts or assertions which induced another

to act detrimentally in reliance upon them. See Fiengo v. Gen. Motors Corp., 225

S.W.3d 858, 861 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.).

To establish an easement by estoppel, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the

owner of the servient estate communicated a representation, either by words or

conduct, to the plaintiff—the promisee, (2) the promisee believed the representation,

and (3) the promisee relied on the representation to its detriment. See Storms, 579

S.W.2d at 452; Mitchell v. Garza, 255 S.W.3d 118, 122 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st

Dist.] 2007, pet. denied). An easement by estoppel, once created, is binding upon a

successor in title if reliance upon the existence of the easement continues. Holden

v. Weidenfeller, 929 S.W.2d 124, 131 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, writ denied).

“The gravity of a judicial means of acquiring an interest in land of another

solely by parol evidence requires that [the doctrine of easement by] estoppel be

strictly applied.” Horner, 397 S.W.3d at 325. The estoppel should be certain,

precise, and clear. Id. “[E]stoppel ordinarily raises a fact issue that is inappropriate

for disposition by summary judgment.” Tex. Utilities Fuel Co. v. Marathon Oil Co.,

No. 11-98-00079-CV, 2000 WL 34234653, at *8 (Tex. App.—Eastland Mar. 9,

2000, no pet.) (not designated for publication).

38
In Storms v. Tuck, 579 S.W.2d 447 (Tex. 1979) the Texas Supreme Court

explained that the “exact nature” of the doctrine of easement by estoppel “has not

been clearly defined,” noting that:

While it is frequently applied in a few definite categories of suits
involving land, the authority for its application outside those categories
is “rare and nebulous.”

Id. at 451 (citing Drye, 364 S.W.2d at 209). The court observed that there appears

to be only “three definite categories of suits in which the doctrine will apply:

(1) dedication of a street, alley, or square; (2) conveyance with reference to a map

or plat; and (3) expenditures by the owner of the alleged easement for improvements

on the servient estate.” Id. at 451 n.3 (citing Drye, 364 S.W.2d at 209–10).

In most cases addressing an easement by estoppel, there is a servient tract that

is burdened by the easement and a dominant tract that benefits from the easement’s

existence. See, e.g., Horner, 397 S.W.3d at 325–26 (addressing easement by

estoppel in case involving use of existing roadway across servient tract by owner of

dominant tract); Wallace v. McKinzie, 869 S.W.2d 592, 594 (Tex. App.—Amarillo

1993, writ denied) (holding easement by estoppel existed when landlocked tract had

been accessed for more than seventy years using road across appellant’s property);

Halsell v. Ferguson, 202 S.W. 317, 322 (Tex. 1918) (holding city and property

owners, who had platted their land and faced lots upon certain streets and improved

them, were estopped to change plat after other persons purchased property on such

39
streets in reliance upon plat).15 We have not found, and the parties have not directed

us to, cases applying the doctrine of easement by estoppel when, as here, the

purported easement is for the construction of a future roadway, much less a

purported representation to grant an easement for a future realigned roadway.16

The “exact nature and extent of the doctrine” has not been “clearly defined,”

however, and when considering whether an easement by estoppel has been created,

courts evaluate the specific facts of each case. See Drye, 364 S.W.2d at 209–10.

Considering the specific facts of this case, we conclude that even if easement by

estoppel applied to the present circumstances, the trial court erred in granting

summary judgment for the District on this basis because there is a question of

material fact on the element of reliance.

15
See also Creation of Easements in Texas by Estoppel, 4 Tex. Prac., Land Titles and
Title Examination § 18.38 (3d ed.) (“The principle of estoppel supports [] the
existence of easements, particularly in the case of exhibited plats or recorded maps
showing dedicated streets and alleys on which grantees were induced to purchase
tracts of land.”); but see Houston Lighting and Power Co. v. State, 925 S.W.2d 312,
315 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied) (holding utility company
acquired public utility easement by estoppel in pais when plats filed in county’s real
property records reflected existence of public utility easement and utility company
relied to its detriment on representation in plats).
16
We note that there is also a question as to whether the doctrine of easement by
estoppel applies when there is no vendor-vendee relationship. See Hazzani, LLC v.
Richardson Bus. Ctr., Ltd., No. 05-18-00346-CV, 2019 WL 3244175, at *5 (Tex.
App.—Dallas July 19, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“Texas courts are split as to
whether a vendor-vendee relationship is required for a finding of an easement by
estoppel.”).

40
B. First Element: Representation to Promisee

The Tsakiris Partnerships argue that there is no evidence that Louis or

Magness made any purported representations to the District and therefore the

District did not establish the first element of its claim of easement by estoppel. They

argue that the only representations made to the District “were about past

representations to the County or about alleged promises to the County to provide a

realigned easement to the County.”

In their response to the District’s motion for summary judgment, the Tsakiris

Partnerships did not dispute that Louis and Magness represented to the District that

an easement for the Kingsland Extension had been granted in October 2009 or that

the Tsakiris Partnerships would grant any easements necessary for a realigned right

of way. Rather, the Tsakiris Partnerships argued that the District had not established

it believed and relied upon such representations to its detriment. 17 A non-movant,

however, may challenge the legal sufficiency of a motion for summary judgment for

17
Although the Tsakiris Partnerships also argue the District was not entitled to
summary judgment because the District’s evidence created a genuine issue of
material fact regarding the existence of an easement for the Kingsland Extension,
they did not raise this issue in the trial court and thus we cannot consider it on appeal.
See TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c) (“Issues not expressly presented to the trial court by
written motion, answer or other response shall not be considered on appeal as
grounds for reversal.”); Christensen v. Coursetrends, Inc., No. 03-12-00821-CV,
2014 WL 4388622, at *3 (Tex. App.—Austin Sept. 3, 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
(citing Rule 166a(c) and holding non-movant failed to preserve argument movant
was not entitled to summary judgment based on genuine issue of material fact when
non-movant did not raise argument in response to motion for summary judgment).

41
the first time on appeal. See McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d

337, 342 (Tex. 1993) (applying rule to motion for traditional summary judgment);

see also Boren v. Newport Operating, LLC, No. 02-19-00358-CV, 2020 WL

6325814, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 29, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“A

nonmovant may file no answer at all to a motion for summary judgment and still

contend on appeal that the grounds expressly presented to the trial court by the

movant’s motion are insufficient as a matter of law to support summary judgment.”).

We thus consider the Tsakiris Partnerships’ argument that no representations

were made to the District regarding the existence of an easement but conclude the

trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on this basis because the District

presented evidence establishing that Louis and Magness made representations to the

District concerning the existence of the Kingsland Easement. We also conclude,

however, that because there is issue of material fact concerning the District’s

reliance on such representations, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment

in favor of the District on its easement by estoppel claim.

C. Second and Third Elements: Belief and Reliance

The District argues it is entitled to an easement by estoppel because it

expended money in reliance on the representations made by the Tsakiris Partnerships

and their predecessors-in-interest concerning the existence of the easement for the

Kingsland Extension. According to the District, but for such representations, it

42
would not have signed the Ross DFA in 2019, where it agreed to finance and

construct the Kingsland Extension, or commissioned preparation of a final plat of

the Kingsland Extension.

The Tsakiris Partnerships argue the District did not conclusively establish that

it believed or relied to its detriment on any of Louis’ or Magness’ representations

because the District incurred no additional liability or expenses by agreeing to

construct the Kingsland Extension at its expense under the Ross DFA signed in April

2019. According to the Tsakiris Partnerships, the District was already obligated

under the ML Dev MSA, as amended on November 8, 2010 and October 5, 2018, to

reimburse ML Dev for construction of the Kingsland Extension, including any

related engineering and surveying expenses. Thus, they argue, there is no evidence

the District changed its position to its detriment by agreeing to construct the

Kingsland Extension. The Tsakiris Partnerships also argue that the District’s

purported belief and reliance upon Louis’ and Magness’ representations was not

reasonable because the District knew there was no easement for Kingsland

Boulevard and that any existing easement had to be realigned.18 The Tsakiris

18
“The doctrine of estoppel in pais is an old one, and is applied only for the purpose
of preventing an injury to those who, in the exercise of ordinary diligence to
ascertain the truth, have been misled by false statements.” Houston & T.C.R. Co. v.
Paris Milling Co., 240 S.W. 638, 640 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1922, no writ).
Although we have not found a recent case addressing easement by estoppel or
estoppel in pais requiring that the party’s reliance on the purported representations
be reasonable or justified, it is well established that the doctrine of estoppel

43
Partnerships argue that at a minimum, there are fact issues on these “inherently fact-

bound questions.”

In his declaration, Wallace, the District’s general counsel, stated that “[Louis]

and Magness repeatedly represented [in their September 2018 emails] that the

Kingsland Easement had been dedicated to Waller County and should realignment

be necessary, the property owner(s) would provide an easement.” Wallace stated

that he “believed and relied upon” Louis’ and Magness’ representations when he

“authorized preparation of a formal survey and plat of the Kingsland Easement, at

the District’s expense” and when the District executed the Ross DFA in April 2019

agreeing “to construct Kingsland Boulevard at the District’s cost.” According to

Wallace, neither Louis nor Magness “disclosed to the District that the District could

not rely upon their prior admissions and representations” and if Louis or Magness

had told him not to rely on their previous statements, “the District would not have

entered into the Ross DFA or commissioned preparation of a final plat of the

Kingsland Easement.”

generally “requires a reasonable or justified reliance on the conduct or statements
of the person sought to be estopped by the person seeking the benefit of the
doctrine.” Fiengo v. Gen. Motors Corp., 225 S.W.3d 858, 861–62 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2007, no pet.) (discussing equitable estoppel). We need not decide this issue,
however, because there is a question of material fact as to whether the District relied
to its detriment on Louis’ or Magness’ representations, regardless of whether such
reliance was reasonable or justified.

44
In his declaration, Getz with WGA stated that WGA, the District’s engineer,

believed and relied upon Louis’ and Magness’ representations that an easement for

the Kingsland Extension had been dedicated and an easement would be provided for

any necessary realignment. According to Getz, Louis and Magness notified WGA

in October 2018 that “they had a separate 200 acres under contract for sale to P-150

(the “P-150 Tract”) which would make necessary a slight realignment of the

Kingsland Easement to avoid encroachment on the P-150 Tract.” Getz stated that

he and WGA “believed and relied upon [Louis]’ and Magness’ promise to realign

and prepared a diagram reflecting the realignment of the Kingsland Easement (the

“2018 Diagram”) []to avoid encroachment upon the P-150 Tract.”

Magness stated in his declaration that ML Dev and the District executed the

ML Dev MSA, under which ML Dev agreed to construct roads, water supply

facilities, waste disposal facilities, and drainage facilities within the District’s

territory and to later sell or lease the facilities to the District. Pursuant to the MSA,

the District agreed to reimburse ML Dev for all design, construction, maintenance,

land, easement, and right-of-way acquisition costs, and miscellaneous costs

“attributable to the construction of the District Construction Project.” When the

parties amended the MSA in 2010, they identified “ROADS/ROWS” and “LAND

& EASEMENTS DEDICATED FOR PROJECTS” as reimbursable District

Construction Projects subject to the MSA, further providing that the District would

45
be responsible for reimbursing 100% of ML Dev’s reimbursable costs for these

projects. Exhibit X to the first amendment is a diagram that included the Kingsland

Extension.

The Ross PSA, which was executed on August 17, 2018, obligated ML Dev

to build the Kingsland Extension at its own expense. After the Ross PSA was signed,

P150 and the District began negotiating the Ross DFA, a development financing

agreement.

On October 17, 2018, Magness sent an email to Wallace informing him that

ML Dev’s deal with P150 for the sale of the P150 tract was “getting to the point

where [P150] will need to have a reimbursement agreement.” By October 23, 2018,

WGA had started “preparing a cost estimate for all reimbursable items” associated

with the P150 transaction. On October 25, 2018, WGA emailed Wallace the

“Preliminary Construction Cost Summary” it had prepared for the “Water, Sanitary

Sewer, Paving, & Drainage Improvements to Serve Pl50 Industrial Development.”

In the cost summary, WGA identified the Kingsland Extension as a reimbursable

“District Construction Project,” and it estimated that the construction would cost

$2,785,938.00, and the cost of engineering and surveying would be an additional

15%, or $417,890.70. WGA noted that, consistent with the ML Dev MSA, “[a]ll

costs are reimbursable by following TCEQ requirements for publicly bidding

46
construction. However, the final reimbursement amount is subject to a

reimbursement agreement with the District.”

In his declaration, Magness stated that during a February 15, 2019 meeting of

the District’s Board of Directors, the District’s attorney Michael Bacon

“recommended that the District finance and control the construction of the

Kingsland Extension because, in his words, this project ‘could be better managed

with the District in charge.’” The meeting minutes corroborate Magness’ statement

and reflect that Bacon also told the Board that “District representatives had attended

multiple meetings with P150 to discuss development terms” for the Ross DFA and

the “negotiations were going well.” Bacon recommended that the District “take

control of the [Kingsland Boulevard] project and finance it directly.” The Board

“agreed that the construction of Kingsland Boulevard should be a District project”

and “voted unanimously to authorize the District’s consultants to proceed

accordingly.”

In early 2019, the District commissioned WGA to prepare a formal survey

and plat of the realigned Kingsland Extension. On March 22, 2019, after the Board

agreed to construct and finance the Kingsland Extension and before the Ross DFA

was executed, Magness emailed Getz with a copy to Louis, stating:

Before we get into the platting of Kingsland, we need to make sure of
a couple items.

Contractually ML Dev is not building Kingsland.

47
ML Dev has agreed with P150 to relocate the road after closing.

There is a metes and bounds description of the existing easement. There
will need to be a new easement and metes and bounds of the new
Kingsland alignment. The county will need to abandon old easement
and accept new. I would think this needs to be done before platting.
And all is post closing.

On April 22, 2019, the District entered into the Ross DFA, under which “the

District agreed to construct Kingsland Boulevard at the District’s cost.” On May 8,

2019, ML Dev and P150 executed the Third Amended Ross PSA in which they

agreed that ML Dev would no longer be required to build or realign Kingsland

Boulevard.

Although Wallace, the District’s general counsel, averred in his declaration

that the District would not have executed the Ross DFA and agreed to construct the

Kingsland Extension at its own cost if Magness or Louis had told him the District

could not rely on their previous representations, Magness’ declaration, the terms of

the Ross PSA (and related amendment), the Ross DFA and the timing of its

negotiation, and the minutes from the Board’s February 15, 2019 meeting raise a

question of material fact as to whether the District executed the Ross DFA in reliance

upon Louis’ and Magness’ representations as opposed to another reason, such as the

District’s belief that the construction of the Kingsland Extension would be better

managed by the District.

48
There is also an issue of material fact as to whether the District was already

obligated to reimburse ML Dev for the costs of constructing the Kingsland Extension

when it executed the Ross DFA and thus whether the District relied to its detriment

based on the purported representations. The District argues there is no evidence it

was obligated to build the Kingsland Extension before it signed the Ross DFA or

that it was obligated to reimburse ML Dev for construction of the Kingsland

Extension, including the expense of a related easement, because it was only

obligated to reimburse ML Dev if ML Dev submitted proof it performed and paid

for a project covered by the ML Dev MSA and it is undisputed that ML Dev did not

construct the Kingsland Extension, and there is no evidence ML Dev expended

money for an easement associated with the construction of the Kingsland Extension.

We are not persuaded by the District’s argument because regardless of whether the

District was ultimately required to reimburse ML Dev for construction of the

Kingsland Extension, including related expenses, the issue before us is whether the

District changed its position to its detriment when it agreed to construct the

Kingsland Extension at its own expense.

The Tsakiris Partnerships presented evidence that the District was required to

reimburse ML Dev for costs it incurred associated with constructing roads within

the District’s territory under the ML Dev MSA, including any engineering and

surveying expenses, the District identified the construction of the Kingsland

49
Extension as a reimbursable project, and, pursuant to the Ross PSA, ML Dev was

required to construct the Kingsland Extension before the February 15, 2019 meeting

when the Board voted to construct the Kingsland Extension at its own expense, and

the District’s execution of the Ross DFA on April 22, 2019. This evidence raised a

question of material fact as to whether the District, purportedly relying on Louis’

and Magness’ representations, incurred additional liability by agreeing to construct

the Kingsland Extension at its expense and commissioning the preparation of a

survey and final plat of the realigned easement. See Tex. Utilities Fuel Co., 2000

WL 34234653, at *8 (stating “estoppel ordinarily raises a fact issue that is

inappropriate for disposition by summary judgment”).

Given the significance of the property rights at issue and the fact that easement

by estoppel is a doctrine that must be “strictly applied” to the facts of each case and

must be “certain, precise and clear,” we cannot say that the District established

conclusively its right to recovery under the doctrine of easement by estoppel based

on Louis’ and Magness’ purported representations. See Hazzani, LLC, 2019 WL

3244175, at *5 (stating “gravity of a judicial means of acquiring an interest in land

of another solely by parol requires that equitable estoppel be strictly applied” and be

“certain, precise and clear”); see generally Tex. Utilities Fuel Co., 2000 WL

34234653, at *8 (stating “estoppel ordinarily raises a fact issue that is inappropriate

for disposition by summary judgment”).

50
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Tsakiris Partnerships,

we conclude there are questions of material fact over whether the District relied to

its detriment on any of Louis’ or Magness’ representations, thus precluding summary

judgment on the District’s easement by estoppel claim. See Sandberg, 600 S.W.3d

at 521 (stating movant must establish its right to judgment as matter of law and courts

take evidence favorable to nonmovant as true, indulge every reasonable inference

and resolve any doubts in nonmovant’s favor when determining whether evidence

raises question of material fact).

We sustain the Tsakiris Partnerships’ third issue.

Express Dedication

The Tsakiris Partnerships argue the trial court erred in granting summary

judgment for the District on its express dedication claim because the District failed

to conclusively establish that the Developers made an express offer to dedicate the

realigned Kingsland Easement and that Waller County accepted the offer of a

realigned Kingsland Easement.19 The District responds that it established that the

Developers—the Tsakiris Partnerships’ predecessors in interest—expressly

19
In its order granting summary judgment, the trial court declared that the “Kingsland
Easement exists as a public right of way by express dedication and by estoppel,”
and “[g]iven the existence of the Kingsland Easement by express dedication and
estoppel, [Appellants] are entitled to no compensation for the District’s
condemnation of such easement.” We must affirm the granting of summary
judgment if the District was entitled to summary judgment on either theory.

51
dedicated the Kingsland Easement to Waller County when the Developers executed

the Second Modification of the Roadway Agreement in 2009, and Waller County

expressly accepted the dedication of the easement at the October 5, 2009 meeting of

the County Commissioners Court when a majority of the Commissioners voted to

approve the Second Modification and “to accept right-of-way easements for portions

of Igloo Road and Kingsland Boulevard.”

A. Applicable Law

“Dedication” is the act of appropriating private land to the public for any

general or public use. Shelton v. Kalbow, 489 S.W.3d 32, 44 (Tex. App.—Houston

[14th Dist.] 2016, pet. denied). “A dedication grants an easement to the general

public in the land dedicated for its use.” Long Island Owner’s Ass’n, Inc. v.

Davidson, 965 S.W.2d 674, 684 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 1998, pet.

denied) (citing Wolf v. Brass, 72 Tex. 133, 12 S.W. 159, 160 (1888)). Once property

has been dedicated to the public, “the owner of the land reserves no rights that are

incompatible with the full enjoyment of the public.” Shelton, 489 S.W.3d at 44.

Dedication can occur by express grant or by implication.20 See Stein v.

Killough, 53 S.W.3d 36, 42 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, no pet.); Gutierrez v.

Cty. of Zapata, 951 S.W.2d 831, 837 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no writ).

20
Although the District also pleaded a claim for implied dedication, it moved for
summary judgment only on its claims for express dedication and estoppel. We thus
do not address the District’s claim for implied dedication.

52
Generally, an express dedication is accomplished by deed or other written document.

Stein, 53 S.W.3d at 42.

To prove an express dedication, the movant must establish that (1) the person

making the dedication held fee simple title to the property and thus had the ability

to dedicate the property, (2) the dedication serves a public purpose, (3) the person

made either an express or implied offer to dedicate the property, and (4) the party’s

offer was accepted. Shelton, 489 S.W.3d at 44. “A dedication of private property

for public use is never presumed.” Aransas Cty. v. Reif, 532 S.W.2d 131, 134 (Tex.

Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1975, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Rather, it must be established by

a declaration or act which shows a “clear and unequivocal intention on the part of

the owner to presently set aside and appropriate a certain part of his land for use by

the public.” Id.; see also Beaty v. Marshall, No. 13-01-176-CV, 2002 WL

34214271, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Dec. 5, 2002, no pet.) (mem.

op.) (same). Acceptance of a dedication for a public purpose can take many forms.

A formal or express acceptance is not required. See Stein, 53 S.W.3d at 42 (stating

express dedication accomplished by deed or other written document and acceptance

of offer to dedicate does not require express acceptance and can be accomplished by

public’s general and customary use of property); see also Lambright v. Trahan, 322

S.W.3d 424, 432 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010, pet. denied) (stating “formal or

express acceptance of a dedication by the public” is not required).

53
B. Analysis

In its motion for summary judgment, the District argued the evidence

conclusively established that the Developers expressly dedicated the “original

Kingsland Easement” for a public purpose when they executed the Second

Modification in 2009. In support of its argument, the District submitted evidence

that Waller XYZ, one of the Developers, was the record owner of fee simple title to

the property to be burdened by the Kingsland Easement, Waller XYZ was managed

and controlled by Tsakiris, who signed the Second Modification on behalf of Waller

XYZ, and the Kingsland Easement was intended to be used to construct, install,

operate, and maintain a public roadway connecting Jordan Ranch Boulevard and

Woods Road and thus served a public purpose.

The District also submitted evidence demonstrating that the Developers

offered to dedicate the original Kingsland Easement on October 5, 2009 when they

executed the Second Modification, which “contains the unambiguous agreement of

the parties that dedication of the Kingsland Easement ‘shall occur within 60 days.’”

According to the District, “the 2009 Diagram, depicting the Kingsland Easement,

was filed of public record in Waller County with the Second Modification.”21 The

2009 Diagram depicts the extension of the Kingsland Boulevard to the east and west

21
The 2009 Diagram does not appear to have been attached to the Second
Modification.

54
of Igloo Road. The District argued Waller County had expressly accepted the

dedication of the easement at the October 5, 2009 Meeting of the County

Commissioners Court. The meeting minutes state:

Discuss and take action to approve 2nd Modification of Road Alignment
and Construction Agreement for Igloo Road and Kingsland Boulevard.
To modify Section 2.1 to read: Dedication of Right-of-Way: To the
extent necessary and appropriate, the Developers shall dedicate or
cause to be dedicated to the County the right-of-way necessary for the
construction and maintenance of the Road Improvements such
dedication, of 100 feet right-of-way for both Igloo and Kingsland, shall
be completed within 60 days of the signing of this 2nd Modified
Agreement. Said dedication will include a metes and bounds
description.

The meeting minutes further state: “Discuss and take action to accept right-of-way

easements for portions of Igloo Road and Kingsland Boulevard.” A majority of the

Commissioners voted to approve.

The District also attached a declaration from Ryan Getz, the founder of WGA,

the District’s engineer. In his declaration, Getz stated:

The Second Modification of the Road Agreement, executed October 5,
2009, provides that dedication of the easements required for Kingsland
Boulevard (the “Kingsland Easement”) and for Igloo Road (aka Jordan
Ranch Boulevard) “shall be completed within sixty days of the
signing.” (See, Px2)

A diagram prepared by Pate Engineers (the “2009 Diagram”), filed of
public record with the Second Modification, depicts the Kingsland
Easement. (See, Px2 at VOL0077 PG937).

...

55
In June 2020, and again in July 2020, the District Engineer provided
Tsakiris an accurate final plat of right of way for the Kingsland
Easement for execution by the Louis Tsakiris Family Partnership, Ltd
and the A. Tsakiris Family Limited Partnership (the “Tsakiris
Partnerships”). See, Px 32, Px33. The District Engineer advised that
Waller County had approved the plat of the realigned right of way for
the Kingsland Easement. See, Px32.

The plat attached to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32 and Plaintiff’s Exhibit 33 describes

the right of way for the realigned Kingsland Easement that the District seeks to

condemn in this action. The Tsakiris Partnerships do not dispute that Waller XYZ

owned the property burdened by the purported easement or that the purported

easement served a public purpose. Rather, the Tsakiris Partnerships argue that the

District failed to establish conclusively that the Developers made an express offer to

dedicate the realigned Kingsland Easement and that Waller County accepted the

offer of a realigned Kingsland Easement.

The District moved for summary judgment based on Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32,

arguing that the depicted easement had been dedicated to the public, and thus the

Tsakiris Partnerships were not entitled to any compensation for the condemned

easement. But the District’s summary judgment evidence reflects that the Second

Modification involved the “original” Kingsland Easement, not the realigned

Kingsland Easement depicted in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32 on which the District relied.

In addition, the evidence on which the District relied to establish acceptance of the

56
dedication reflects that Waller County accepted the original Kingsland Easement in

2009 during the October 5, 2009 Meeting of the County Commissioners Court.

In their response to the District’s summary judgment motion, the Tsakiris

Partnerships argued that because Waller County accepted the easement for

Kingsland Boulevard in 2009, before the realigned easement was proposed, the

District failed to prove Waller County’s acceptance of the realigned easement, as

reflected in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32. In its reply, the District argued that the September

2018 emails sent by Tsakiris and Magness to Wallace and WGA admitted the

existence and dedication of the easement, as well as Tsakiris’ and Magness’ promise

that a realigned easement would be provided if necessary. According to the District,

these statements are sufficient to establish that the realigned Kingsland Easement

was expressly dedicated for a public purpose because it constitutes a “declaration or

some express manifestation of the purpose to devote the land to the public use” and

Waller County’s acceptance of the dedication does not require a formal or express

act. See Gutierrez, 951 S.W.2d at 838, 840.

Tsakiris’ and Magness’ representations in the September 2018 emails that the

Kingsland Easement as it existed in 2009 had been dedicated to Waller County and

their promise to provide a realignment of the easement should it become necessary

do not conclusively establish that the Tsakiris Partnerships dedicated the realigned

easement to Waller County as reflected in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 32. A “mere agreement

57
to dedicate on demand does not constitute a dedication.” Beaty, 2002 WL 34214271,

at *2. Nor do the representations conclusively establish that Waller County accepted

an offer of the realigned Kingsland Easement, much less the location and parameters

of such a realigned easement. See id.; see also generally Aransas Cty., 532 S.W.2d

at 134 (stating dedication of property must be established by declaration or act

showing “clear and unequivocal intention on the part of the owner to presently set

aside and appropriate a certain part of his land for use by the public”).

Citing to Auto Insurance Co. of Hartford Connecticut v. United Electric

Services Company, the District argues that “the trial court was empowered to reform

the original dedicated easement by slight realignment of its western end” because as

“a court sitting in equity, the trial court had discretion to reform the prior express

dedication of easement to reflect the true boundary because of the inequitable

conduct of the Tsakiris Partnerships.” 275 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth

1955, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Summary judgment, however, cannot be granted on grounds

not expressly set forth in the motion, and the District did not present this argument

to the trial court. See Charles v. Dickinson Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 01-20-00215-CV,

2022 WL 904434, at *11 n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 29, 2022, no

pet.) (mem. op.) (“Because summary judgment is not proper on a ground not raised

in a motion for summary judgment and because we do not consider arguments raised

for the first time on appeal, we decline to consider these arguments.”) (citing TEX.

58
R. CIV. P. 166a(c); TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)). The District also has not cited any

authority holding that a trial court has the power to reform or modify an easement in

a summary judgment proceeding.22

Based on the evidence and arguments raised in the summary judgment

proceeding, we conclude the District failed to establish conclusively that it was

entitled to summary judgment on its claim for express dedication of the realigned

Kingsland Easement because the District did not conclusively establish that the

Tsakiris Partnerships offered to dedicate the realigned easement to Waller County,

as opposed to the original easement, or that Waller County accepted the offer of the

realigned easement. See City of Keller, 168 S.W.3d. at 816 (stating matter

conclusively established if reasonable people could not differ as to conclusion to be

drawn from evidence). The trial court thus erred by granting summary judgment for

the District on its claim for express dedication and declaring that the Tsakiris

Partnerships were not entitled to compensation for the condemnation of the realigned

Kingsland Extension because the condemned property had been expressly dedicated

to the public.

The trial court also erred in granting summary judgment on the District’s

claim for express dedication because the evidence raises material questions of fact

22
In Auto Insurance Company of Hartford Connecticut, the trial court reformed an
insurance contract based on mutual mistake after a jury trial. 275 S.W.2d 833, 836,
828–39 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1955, writ ref’d n.r.e.).

59
over whether the Developers intended to dedicate the Kingsland Extension when

they executed the Second Modification and whether Waller County accepted such

an offer to dedicate. In their motion for summary judgment, the District argued that

Waller County agreed to the dedication by executing the Second Modification.

On October 5, 2009, Waller County and Developers executed the Second

Modification, which replaced Article 2.1 of the Road Agreement to read:

Dedication of Right of Way. To the extent necessary and appropriate,
the Developers shall dedicate or cause to be dedicated to the County the
right of way necessary for the construction and maintenance of the
Road Improvements. Such dedication shall be completed within sixty
days of the signing of this Second Modification of Road Alignment and
Construction.

Although the District interprets the terms of the Second Modification as dedicating

the Kingsland Extension to Waller County, the plain language of the Second

Modification can also be interpreted to create an agreement or promise that the

Developers will dedicate a right of way to Waller County at some yet-to-be

determined time in the future (“the Developers shall dedicate or cause to be

dedicated to the County”) and any dedication is conditional upon such dedication

being “necessary and appropriate.” See Aransas Cnty., 532 S.W.2d at 134 (requiring

evidence of party’s “clear and unequivocal intention” to dedicate its property for

public use); see also Beaty, 2002 WL 34214271, at *2 (stating dedication requires

more than “mere agreement to dedicate on demand”). Because the pertinent

language in the Second Modification purportedly dedicating the Kingsland

60
Extension is susceptible to two interpretations, the contract is ambiguous and thus

creates a fact issue regarding the parties’ intent. See Rosetta Res. Operating, LP v.

Martin, 645 S.W.3d 212, 219 (Tex. 2022). The trial court thus erred in granting

summary judgment on the District’s express dedication claim based on the terms of

the Second Modification. See id. (stating ambiguous contract creates fact issue

regarding parties’ intent and thus “the granting of a motion for summary judgment

is improper because the interpretation of the instrument becomes a fact issue”)

(quoting Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tex. 1983)).

Even assuming the Developers offered to dedicate the Kingsland Extension

by virtue of executing the Second Modification, the summary judgment evidence

raises a genuine issue of material fact over whether Waller County accepted the offer

of the Kingsland Extension in 2009. The summary judgment record reflects that on

the day the Developers executed the Second Modification, Waller XYZ and Blimp

Base executed a 100’ Road Easement for the extension of Igloo Road and Kingsland

Boulevard to the east of Igloo Road, along with a metes and bounds description of

the subject property. Waller XYZ and Blimp Base, however, did not execute an

easement for the proposed extension of Kingsland Boulevard to the west of Igloo

Road—the Kingsland Extension. The Tsakiris Partnerships also submitted a July

10, 2012 survey of easements within the District’s boundaries that was prepared by

the District’s surveying company, Windrose Land Services, Inc. (“Windrose”). The

61
Tsakiris Partnerships argue that the 2012 survey “clearly showed that the 100’ Road

Easement signed on October 5, [2009] was related to the extensions of Igloo Road

and Kingsland Boulevard east of Igloo Road, not the Kingsland Extension.” In his

declaration, Tsakiris explained that Waller XYZ and Blimp Base did not execute an

easement for the Kingsland Extension to Waller County in 2009 because neither the

Developers nor Waller County thought it was necessary and appropriate to do so.

The District does not dispute that contemporaneous with execution of the

Second Modification, Waller XYZ and Blimp Base executed an easement to Waller

County for the extension of Kingsland Boulevard to the east of Igloo Road but did

not execute an easement for the Kingsland Extension to the west of Igloo Road, or

that the 2012 Windrose survey reflects only an easement for the extension of

Kingsland Boulevard to the east of Igloo Road. Rather, the District argues that the

easement for the extension of Kingsland Boulevard to the east of Igloo Road and the

2012 survey are immaterial because an express dedication can be made in any

written document, such as the Second Modification, and thus it was not necessary

for the Waller XYZ and Blimp Base to have executed a separate written easement

to establish that the Partnerships dedicated the Kingsland Extension in 2009. See

Stein, 53 S.W.3d at 42 (stating express dedication is accomplished by deed or other

written document and acceptance of offer to dedicate does not require express

acceptance and can be accomplished by public’s general and customary use of

62
property); see also Lambright, 322 S.W.3d at 432 (stating “formal or express

acceptance of a dedication by the public” is not required). The District further argues

Waller County “agreed to the dedication by executing the Second Modification of

the Roadway Agreement” and it “expressly accepted the dedication of the easement”

during the October 5, 2009, County Commissioners Court meeting as reflected in

the meeting minutes, which “reflect that a majority of the County Commissioners

voted ‘to accept right‐of‐way easements for . . . Kingsland Boulevard.’”

While we agree that an express written easement is not required to establish

express dedication, we disagree that evidence of the other easement is immaterial.

Although an express dedication could have been accomplished by the Second

Modification, the execution of a 100’ Road Easement for the portion of Kingsland

Boulevard to the east of Igloo Road on October 5, 2009, and the Commissioner’s

vote to “accept right-of-way easements for portions of Igloo Road and Kingsland

Boulevard” as reflected in the 2012 survey, raise a genuine issue of material fact as

to whether the offer to dedicate was accepted. The difference between the modified

language of Article 2.1 set forth in the Second Modification and the language the

Commissioners voted to approve is informative. The Second Modification modified

Section 2.1 of the Road Alignment and Construction Agreement to read:

Dedication of Right of Way. To the extent necessary and appropriate,
the Developers shall dedicate or cause to be dedicated to the County the
right of way necessary for the construction and maintenance of the
Road Improvements. Such dedication shall be completed within sixty
63
days of the signing of this Second Modification of Road Alignment and
Construction.

The minutes from the October 5, 2009 Commissioners Court meeting, however,

state:

Discuss and take action to approve 2nd Modification of Road Alignment
and Construction Agreement for Igloo Road and Kingsland Boulevard.
To modify Section 2.1 to read: Dedication of Right-of-Way: To the
extent necessary and appropriate, the Developers shall dedicate or
cause to be dedicated to the County the right-of-way necessary for the
construction and maintenance of the Road Improvements such
dedication, of 100 feet right-of-way for both Igloo and Kingsland, shall
be completed within 60 days of the signing of this 2nd Modified
Agreement. Said dedication will include a metes and bounds
description. [Emphasis added.]

The meeting minutes further state: “Discuss and take action to accept right-of-way

easements for portions of Igloo Road and Kingsland Boulevard.” A majority of the

Commissioners voted to approve.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Tsakiris Partnerships,

we conclude that the italicized language referring to the “dedication, of 100 feet

right-of-way for both Igloo and Kingsland,” coupled with the execution of the

October 5, 2009 100’ Road Easement for the portion of Kingsland Boulevard to the

east of Igloo Road, raises a fact question as to whether Waller County intended to

accept a dedication of the Kingsland Extension in 2009, thus precluding summary

judgment on the District’s express dedication claim. See Sandberg, 600 S.W.3d at

521 (stating movant must establish its right to judgment as matter of law and courts

64
take evidence favorable to nonmovant as true, indulge every reasonable inference

and resolve any doubts in nonmovant’s favor when determining whether evidence

raises question of material fact).

We sustain the Tsakiris Partnerships’ first issue.23

Conclusion

We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.

Veronica Rivas-Molloy
Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Rivas-Molloy and Gunn.

23
Having concluded that this appeal should be remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings because the District failed to prove that it is entitled to summary
judgment on express dedication and easement by estoppel, we need not address the
Tsakiris Partnerships’ fifth issue.

65