Monday, May 4, 2020

Questions from Tiffany’s Desk: Can One Co-Owner Grant an Easement to a Third-Party?

Originally published by Tiffany Dowell.

Question:  Can one co-owner of property grant an easement to a third party or is consent from all co-owners required?

Photo by Irina Iriser from Pexels

Answer:  “It is well settled that a tenant in common cannot, without the precedent authority or subsequent ratification of his cotenants, impose an easement or dedication upon the common property in favor of a third party.”   See Tex. Mortg. Co. v. Phillips Petrol. Co., 470 F.2d 497 (5th Cir. 1972) (applying Texas law).  In other words, without the consent of all co-owners, or their subsequent agreement to the terms of an easement, one co-owner may not grant an easement burdening the jointly owned land to a third party.  See Elliott v. Elliott, 597 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1980) (“Absent consent or subsequent ratification by the other co-tenants, the general rule is that one co-tenant cannot impose an easement upon the common property in favor of third persons.”).

In Lee v. Philips Petroleum Co., 329 F. Supp. 579 (S.D. Tex. 1971), the court addressed this issue in the context of competing pipeline easements.  Korge and Turner each owned an undivided one-half interest in the property at issue.  In 1956, Korge entered into an agreement with Phillips Pipeline Company (“Pipeline”) that allowed Pipeline to construct a single line across the land.  Two days later, Turner entered into an agreement with Phillips Petroleum Company (“Petroleum”) allowing Petroleum to lay a pipeline or pipelines across the land.  Later that year, Mr. Lee purchased the Korge interest in the land and the following year, he purchased the Korge interest, making him the sole owner.

Ten years after he purchased the property, Petroleum sent a letter to Lee seeking to construct an additional pipeline on the land.  Lee would not agree, and Petroleum entered the land and began construction over his objection.  Lee filed suit against Petroleum for trespass to try title claiming the Turner easement was invalid.

The court agreed, finding the Turner easement sought to convey greater rights than were allowed by the Korge grant, which could not be done by one cotenant.  “In sum, as defendants failed to receive a multiple-line grant from the Korge cotenants, the multiple-line grant which Petroleum did receive from the Turner group was ineffective to bind the joint estate of the two sets of grantors.” Thus, Mr. Lee had the right to essentially step into the shoes of the Korge owners and oppose the construction of the second pipeline.

Key Takeaways:  For anyone involved in the grant of an easement–whether as the person granting the easement or the person seeking the easement–it is critical to ensure the correct parties have signed off on the easement in order for it to be valid.  Taking the time to do your homework to determine the legal owners of the property and to obtain the required consent or ratification is time well spent to avoid a legal challenge to the grant of an easement later.

For more information on easements, check out our chapter on Access to Property in our Owning Your Piece of Texas handbook or listen to our prior podcast on easements and landlocked property with James Decker.

The post Questions from Tiffany’s Desk: Can One Co-Owner Grant an Easement to a Third-Party? appeared first on Texas Agriculture Law.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2WrA7MF
via Abogado Aly Website

Friday, May 1, 2020

Beginning with “but”

Originally published by Wayne Schiess.

There’s no rule against beginning a sentence with but.

Sure, it’s a wise admonition from middle-school English teachers that novice writers avoid beginning a series of sentences with but.

  • In July we went to Six Flags. But it rained that day. But my mom said we could go again later. But by August, we didn’t have time. But I really wanted to go.

In high school, many English teachers embrace the beginning but. My son’s 9th-grade English teacher included “beginning with a conjunction” in a list of writing techniques, offering this example, But how could this be? and requiring students to create their own examples.

What? Teaching kids it’s okay to begin a sentence with but? No wonder writing skills are in decline and college students (not to mention law students) don’t write well.

But wait.

I applaud this high-school teacher, and he’s in line with the general view of numerous writing authorities.

I’ve made this point before: Lite Connectors, Austin Lawyer 13 (Dec. 2008 / Jan. 2009). I won’t rehash the sources I quoted there, but I’ll refer you to Bryan A. Garner, On Beginning Sentences with But, Mich. B.J. 43 (Oct. 2003); The Chicago Manual of Style (“a perfectly proper word to open a sentence”); and the Internet, where a Google search for “beginning with but” turns up many reputable authorities recommending the practice.

As with many writing “rules,” the truth is that beginning with but isn’t about wrong or right; it’s about formality, emphasis, and style. So don’t uncritically apply this nonrule. Think about your writing goals and options and decide how you want to use the language.

Let’s start with formality. Although we should be comfortable beginning with but in e-mail messages, print correspondence, and inter-office memos, some lawyers avoid the practice in formal documents like motions, briefs, and judicial opinions. Yet the technique has been used in formal legal documents for centuries. Here are some examples.

From a judicial opinion in 2013:

  • “But this case has nothing to do with federalism.” City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290, 305 (2013).

From a judicial opinion in 1901:

  • “But this is not sufficient.” Colburn v. Grant, 181 U.S. 601, 607 (1901).

From a judicial opinion in 1793:

“But this redress goes only half way.” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419, 422 (1793).

From an appellate brief in 2003:

  • “But the EPA cannot claim that ADEC’s decision was unreasoned.” Alaska Dept. of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 2003 WL 2010655 at 46 (U.S. Pet. Brief 2003).

And from the U.S. Constitution:

  • “But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays . . . .” U.S. Const. art. I, § 7.

If we accept that beginning with but is appropriate for formal legal documents, then it becomes a tool we can use to manage emphasis. Using the example from Arlington v. FCC, note the differing emphases in these three versions:

  1. But this case has nothing to do with federalism. (succinctly emphasizes the contrast)
  2. However, this case has nothing to do with federalism. (contrasts but moves more slowly)
  3. This case, however, has nothing to do with federalism. (even slower and emphasizes this case)

You can do more than use the technique for emphasis. Once you’re comfortable beginning with but, you can use it to create readable, crisp transitions that quickly orient the reader to a change of direction. For crisp transitions, yet is a great word to begin with, too.

From a judicial opinion in 1968:

  • “Yet we see no possible rational basis.” Glona v. Am. Guarantee & Liab. Ins. Co., 391 U.S. 73, 75 (1968).

Yes, you can begin with however or in contrast or on the other hand. They’re fine. But now we know that beginning with but is fine for formal legal documents, gives us a tool for managing emphasis, and makes a great connector.

After all, there’s no rule against beginning a sentence with but.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/35yIgU1
via Abogado Aly Website

ABA Annual Meeting to be Held Only Online

Originally published by Legal Writing Prof.

In response to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, the ABA Board of Governors has decided that the 2020 annual meeting will be entirely virtual. The 2020 ABA Annual Meeting is scheduled for July 29 to Aug. 4. More information on the…

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/2YrxmxA
via Abogado Aly Website

Spousal support in Texas: What it means

Originally published by On behalf of Laura Dale.

After a marriage ends, spousal support in Texas is not a guarantee. Even then, it is limited to whatever is necessary to provide for the receiving spouse’s minimum basic needs.

What does that mean? Well, for starters, spousal support is limited to no more than $5,000 per month or 20% of the paying spouse’s income — whichever is smaller. However, the exact definition of what equals a spouse’s “minimum basic needs” isn’t clearly defined. That gives judges — and dependent spouses — a little leeway.

Some of the most common factors a judge might consider when setting a spousal support payment include:

  • A mortgage or rent payment
  • Utility payments
  • Car notes
  • Health insurance premiums
  • Medical expenses
  • Monthly groceries

Spousal support is generally designed to be temporary relief while the dependent spouse tries to gain their financial footing. It’s generally only awarded for five, seven or 10 years (depending on the duration of the marriage) — and only so long as the dependent spouse is still unable to meet their own basic needs.

Exactly what makes a dependent spouse unable to meet their own basic needs can vary from situation to situation, but some common examples include spouses who have put aside their own career developments to take care of the home or family. A spouse who develops a physical or mental disability during the marriage may also reasonably expect support. Other spouses may be awarded support so that they can more easily return to school or develop a trade.

If you hope to receive spousal support after your marriage ends, it’s smart to talk over your expectations and hopes with an experienced advocate.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/35mk2Ms
via Abogado Aly Website

New Unemployment Claim Guidance Issued by Texas Workforce Commission

Originally published by Christopher McKinney.

We have been getting a ton of calls on this issue this week as businesses are starting to open up. In cases where a person’s employer re-opens but an employee cannot or is afraid to return to work, what happens to their unemployment??

Well, today we have an answer from the Texas Workforce Commission.

Governor Greg Abbott announced Thursday the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) has issued new guidance for unemployment claimants concerning their eligibility for unemployment benefits should they choose not to return to work at this time due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Texans can continue to receive unemployment benefits throughout the COVID-19 response if they choose not to return to work because of certain reasons specified by the TWC.

Unemployment insurance claims are currently being evaluated on an individual basis.

Benefits would be granted for following reasons by the TWC if the individual refused work:

  • At High Risk: People 65 years or older are at a higher risk for getting very sick from COVID-19.

  • Household member at high risk: People 65 years or older are at a higher risk of getting very sick from COVID-19.

  • Diagnosed with COVID: The individual has tested positive for COVID-19 by a source authorized by the State of Texas and is not recovered.

  • Family member with COVID: Anybody in the household has tested positive for COVID-19 by a source authorized by the State of Texas and is not recovered and 14 days have not yet passed.

  • Quarantined: Individual is currently in 14-day quarantine due to close contact exposure to COVID-19.

  • Child care: Child’s school or daycare closed and no alternatives are available.

Link to the Governor’s press release.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/3fc9Cnh
via Abogado Aly Website

Can I File a Car Accident Claim During the Coronavirus Pandemic?

Originally published by Hank Stout.

Can I File a Car Accident Claim During the Coronavirus Pandemic?

COVID-19
has wreaked havoc throughout the world and it’s just getting started in the
United States. Businesses are closing and residents are quarantining due to a
nationwide stay-at-home order. Yet as life pauses, car accidents are still
happening. Those injured may be wondering if claims can still be filed while in
quarantine or if personal injury attorneys are still in business. The answer is
yes; however, there may be some restrictions. Here’s all you need to know when
filing a claim during COVID-19.

Texas Courts Closing During COVID-19

For
the time being, Texas courts are closing while we social distance ourselves
during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The Supreme Court of Texas and the Court
of Criminal Appeals issued an emergency order suspending court proceedings
during this time.

The
good news is that all hearings, depositions, and any type of court appearance
will be conducted remotely via teleconferencing or any other virtual means.

If your county court is closed, just know that the attorneys here at the Sutliff & Stout Law Firm are still available to pursue any and all claims.

Are Law Firms Affected?

To
put it simply, yes. Since most businesses, if not closed, they have moved
remotely. However, just because most law firms, especially Texas law firms, are
online doesn’t mean we aren’t in business. Sutliff & Stout Law Firm is
still 100% running full throttle, at full capacity and is available to assist
you with any need. It’s important we continue to practice social distancing
while also assisting our clients to the best of our ability.

Our
attorneys are able to do all of the following:

  • Working from remote locations, where we are still able to handle all matters of our clients’ cases, collaborate with our staff in our other office locations, and respond to any potential future clients.
  • Utilizing technology for our records, documentation, and information necessary for our clients. We’re also able to use technology (Zoom) to conduct certain legal proceedings, depositions, and other legal documents.
  • Communicating by telephone, e-mail, video conferencing, and other virtual communication methods.

Can I Still File a Claim?

After your car accident, you can file a claim with us by going here. Accidents won’t stop, not even during a global pandemic. The attorneys at Sutliff & Stout are still available for you if you need to file a car accident claim.

It’s
important to note that due to the pandemic, a lot of claims and proceedings are
halting for the time being. The Statute of Limitations in Texas says to file a
claim within two years since the date of the accident. So while some legal
actions may be halted, it’s best to file a claim as soon as possible while we
are in this global pandemic.

File a Claim with Sutliff & Stout

Sutliff & Stout, Injury & Accident Firm is available for all potential clients and current clients during COVID-19. If you happen to be involved in a car accident and are seeking a claim, don’t hesitate to contact us. Life doesn’t stop and neither should your care after a car accident. Although your claim can’t go to the courts right away, it doesn’t hurt to file it as soon as possible. File a claim with Sutliff & Stout today.

The post Can I File a Car Accident Claim During the Coronavirus Pandemic? appeared first on Sutliff & Stout, Injury & Accident Law Firm.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/3fa9eWo
via Abogado Aly Website

Top 10 from Texas Bar Today: Rover, Two Houstons, and COVID-19

Originally published by Joanna Herzik.

To highlight some of the posts that stand out from the crowd, the editors of Texas Bar Today have created a list from the week’s blog posts of the top ten based on subject matter, writing style, headline, and imagery. We hope you enjoy this installment.

10. Mediating in the Wake of COVID-19 – Bob Black of MehaffyWeber, P.C. @MehaffyWeber in Beaumont

9. How To Engage With An Audience In Crisis – Stacey E. Burke of Stacey E. Burke P.C. @StaceyEBurke in Houston

8. COVID-19: Are Your Constitutional Rights Quarantined Too? – Bill Drabble of Gray Reed & McGraw @GrayReedLaw in Dallas

7. Physical Damage Requirement and COVID-19 – Jeff Raizner of Raizner Slania LLP @raiznerslania in Houston

6. A Tale of Two Houstons – the Old Texas Anti-Slapp and Garden Variety Non-Compete Cases – Sean Lemoine @TXantislapplaw of Wick Phillips in Dallas

5. Rover to the Rescue – Lori-Ann Craig of the Harris County Law Libary @HCLawLibrary in Houston

4. How COVID-19 is Impacting Volunteers – Bryce Hopson of Hance Law Group, P.C. in Dallas

3. Braille Gift Cards and Title III – William Goren of William D. Goren, J.D., LL.M., LLC

2. Manager’s Guide to Discrimination in the Workplace – Brett Holubeck @BrettHolubeck Alaniz Law & Associates in Houston

1. Texas Reopens: What Businesses Need To Know –  Emily Harbison of Baker & McKenzie LLP @bakermckenzie in Houston

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.



from Texas Bar Today https://ift.tt/3f9QB4C
via Abogado Aly Website