A Texas court recently ruled on a significant easement dispute involving the Fort Worth & Western Railroad Company (FWWR) and Nathan D. Albert, along with his business, Chisholm Trail Redi-Mix, LLC. The case, Fort Worth & Western Railroad Company v. Nathan D. Albert and Chisholm Trail Redi-Mix, LLC, was decided by the Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco) on August 27, 2026. This ruling affects property rights and access for businesses that rely on easements to operate.
The dispute centers around a railroad crossing on property owned by FWWR, which connects a ten-acre tract of land purchased by Albert to State Highway 171 in Johnson County. Albert bought the property in April 2016 to build a cement mixing plant for Chisholm Trail Redi-Mix, a company he formed with two partners. The property had a gravel road crossing the railroad track, originally constructed under a license agreement with FWWR's predecessor in title. However, the license was not transferable without written permission, and subsequent owners did not secure a new license.
Despite lacking a proper license, Albert and his partners used the gravel road crossing to access their property for their cement plant. In May 2016, FWWR informed Albert that he and his company did not have rights to use the crossing. In response, Albert and Chisholm filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to establish an easement by estoppel, necessity, and prescription. FWWR countered with claims of trespass and sought damages and injunctive relief.
A jury ultimately sided with Albert, finding in favor of the easement claims and rejecting FWWR's trespass claims. The trial court awarded attorney's fees to Albert and denied FWWR's request for fees. FWWR appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support the jury's findings. The Texas Court of Appeals initially ruled that the evidence was insufficient to support the easements and reversed the jury's decision.
However, the Texas Supreme Court later reviewed the case and affirmed the finding of a prescriptive easement, which allows Albert to use the crossing. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals to address unresolved issues regarding the geographic boundaries and permitted uses of the easement.
In its recent ruling, the Texas Court of Appeals, led by Justice Lee Harris, reversed the trial court's judgment regarding the factual sufficiency of the evidence on the prescriptive easement and trespass claims. The court stated, "We reverse and remand the trial court’s judgment." This decision means that the trial court must conduct a new trial on the prescriptive easement issue, FWWR's trespass claims, and reconsider attorney's fees.
The ruling emphasizes the importance of easements in property law and how they can significantly impact business operations. For property owners and businesses, this case highlights the necessity of securing proper easement rights and understanding the legal implications of using property without a clear agreement.
The decision also raises questions about how easement disputes will be handled in the future, particularly regarding the requirements for establishing easements by prescription and the legal standards courts will apply. It is crucial for property owners to be aware of their rights and responsibilities when it comes to easements.
Looking ahead, the case may still be appealed, and further legal developments could arise as the trial court conducts a new trial on the unresolved issues. As the legal landscape evolves, both property owners and businesses should stay informed about their rights and the implications of this ruling.