The Texas A&M University System v. Montgomery County

The state of Texas and The Texas A&M University System (TAMUS) appeal a declaratory judgment that Montgomery County is vested with a statutory easement and right-of-way through a section of state forest managed by TAMUS. The controversy concerns the widening of a state highway pursuant to a pass-through toll agreement between the county and the Texas Department of Transportation. Appellants contend that the express statutory grant of an easement across state land for county projects does not apply here, because the project relates to a state highway system improvement. Instead, they argue, a section of the Education Code that permits TAMUS to grant easements to the Texas Department of Transportation applies. Appellants further contend the declaration of an easement is actually a trespass-to-try-title suit from which they are immune. Finally, appellants contend the county is liable for appellants' expenses, because the county abandoned its condemnation claim. The trial court's judgment is affirmed. Beaumont Court of Appeals, No. 09-09-00518-CV, 02-24-2011

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The State of Texas and The Texas A&M University System (“TAMUS”) appeal a declaratory judgment that Montgomery County (“the County”) is vested with a statutory easement and right-of-way through a section of state forest that is managed by TAMUS. The controversy concerns the widening of a state highway (“FM 1488″) pursuant to a pass-through toll agreement between the County and the Texas Department of Transportation (“TxDOT”). See Tex. Transp. Code Ann. � 222.104 (West Supp. 2010). Raising four issues, appellants contend that the express statutory grant of an easement across State land for County projects does not apply here because the project relates to a State highway system improvement. Instead, they argue, a section of the Education Code that permits TAMUS to grant easements to TxDOT applies. Appellants further contend the declaration of an easement is actually a trespass to try title suit from which they are immune. Finally, appellants contend the County is liable for appellants’ expenses because the County abandoned its condemnation claim. We affirm the judgment.

Interlocutory Appeal

The Texas A&M University System v. Montgomery County

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal