David Grupa v. Lillie D. Basset, Stanley E. Dickson, Carolyn Spiller, Clifford Dickson, and Janice Craddock ( 2015 )

Opinion issued May 28, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00524-CV
———————————
DAVID GRUPA, Appellant
V.
LILLIE D. BASSET, STANLEY E. DICKSON, CAROLYN SPILLER,
CLIFFORD DICKSON, AND JANICE CRADDOCK, Appellees
On Appeal from the 506th District Court
Grimes County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 32491
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Lillie D. Basset, Stanley E. Dickson, Carolyn Spiller, Clifford Dickson, and
Janice Craddock (collectively, the “Dicksons”) filed suit against David Grupa,
seeking to quiet title on certain property in Grimes County, Texas. Following a
bench trial, the trial court signed a judgment in favor of the Dicksons. In four
issues on appeal, Grupa challenges the legal and factual sufficiency of certain
inheritance matters related to the title dispute.
We affirm.
Background
In 1895, James I. Kennard and his wife, Jennie Kennard, purchased a 100-
acre tract in Grimes County. At the time of trial in 2014, David Grupa owned 26
acres of that original tract. The underlying suit concerned the division of
ownership of the remaining 74 acres. A central dispute between the parties was
whether James and Jennie Kennard’s son, Sherman Kennard, had any heirs at the
time of his death. Following the bench trial, the trial court concluded that
Sherman’s share in the property passed to his siblings upon his death and that
“[t]he putative heirs of Sherman Kennard, being in fact not the heirs of Sherman
Kennard, had no right, title or interest in the 100 acres of land.”
Also at issue during the trial was whether the Dicksons had adversely
possessed the 74 acres in question. The trial court did not make any conclusions of
law on this matter. It did, however, make findings of fact concerning adverse
possession.
Analysis
In four issues on appeal, Grupa challenges the legal and factual sufficiency
of certain inheritance matters related to the title dispute. The Dicksons argue these
2
issues are moot because Grupa has failed to challenge findings of fact concerning
adverse possession that would independently support the judgment. We agree.
The parties submitted their dispute to a bench trial. Following the trial, the
trial court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. Unchallenged findings
“are binding on an appellate court unless the contrary is established as a matter of
law, or if there is no evidence to support the finding.” McGalliard v. Kuhlmann,
722 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Tex. 1986); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i); Pat Baker Co.
v. Wilson, 971 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Tex. 1998) (“It is axiomatic that an appellate
court cannot reverse a trial court’s judgment absent properly assigned error.”).
Accordingly, “an appellant must attack all independent bases or grounds that fully
support a complained-of ruling or judgment.” Britton v. Tex. Dept. of Criminal
Justice, 95 S.W.3d 676, 681 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). If
unchallenged findings of fact have support in the record and will fully support the
judgment, then the findings are binding on the court and dispositive of the appeal.
See McGalliard, 722 S.W.2d at 696; Britton, 95 S.W.3d at 681.
The Dicksons point out that they included an adverse possession claim in
their pleading. On that claim, the trial court made the following findings of fact:
Possession of the remaining 74 acres of land by Carolyn Dickson
Spiller; Janice Dickson Craddock; Clifford Dickson; and, Stanley E.
Dickson, and their predecessors in title was open, adverse and
notorious to any other claimants. The 75 (now 74 acres) acres has
been fenced since 1974 with a structure capable of turning and
containing cattle and other livestock, cattle were maintained on the
3
property continuously, with only infrequent lapses, from 1952 through
the present time, and property taxes were timely paid on the entire 75
acre (now 74 acre) tract of land through 2009 by Carolyn Dickson
Spiller, Janice Dickson Craddock, Clifford Dickson, and Stanley E.
Dickson.
Section 16.026 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code sets a 10-
year statute of limitations on recovering “real property held in peaceable and
adverse possession by another who cultivates, uses, or enjoys the property.” TEX.
CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.026(a) (Vernon 2002). The court’s finding
establishes that the Dicksons and their predecessors developed and used the land to
raise cattle from 1952 to the time of trial in 2014. There is evidence in the record
supporting this finding, and the opposite is not established as a matter of law. See
McGalliard, 722 S.W.2d at 696. These findings are sufficient to establish the 10-
year statute of limitations period had run. See CIV. PRAC. & REM. § 16.026(a).
Accordingly, any claim to the property that any descendants of Sherman may have
had has been extinguished. See id. A determination of adverse possession, then,
would fully support the trial court’s judgment.
In its brief, Grupa claims, “Although [the Dicksons] had pled a theory of
adverse possession, the trial court did not rule on that theory and it is not before
this court.” As we have identified, this is incorrect. While the trial court did not
make any express conclusions of law on the adverse possession claim, this is not
dispositive. If an appellate court reviewing a trial court’s conclusions of law
4
“determines a conclusion of law is erroneous, but the trial court rendered the
proper judgment, the erroneous conclusion of law does not require reversal.” BMC
Software Belgium, N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789, 794 (Tex. 2002). As a
result, even if we agreed with Grupa that the trial court erroneously concluded that
Sherman did not have any heirs, we would still have to review the remainder of the
issues presented at trial. See id.
Because Grupa did not challenge the adverse-possession findings and there
is some evidence supporting them, they are binding on us. See McGalliard, 722
S.W.2d at 696. Because the adverse-possession findings would fully support the
judgment, Grupa has failed to challenge all of the independent bases supporting the
trial court’s judgment determining that title to the disputed property is vested in the
Dicksons. See Britton, 95 S.W.3d at 681. Accordingly, any error relating to the
trial court’s determination of the transfer of title through lineage is moot, and we
must affirm the trial court’s judgment. See id.; BMC Software, 83 S.W.3d at 794.
We overrule Grupa’s four issues as moot.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Laura Carter Higley
Justice
5
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Higley, and Huddle.
6