Jackson v. Van Winkle

Citations: 660 S.W.2d 807; 27 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 87; 1983 Tex. LEXIS 359Docket: C-1971

Court: Texas Supreme Court; November 16, 1983; Texas; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case 660 S.W.2d 807 (1983), the Supreme Court of Texas addressed a dispute regarding an easement for a roadway across ranch property, initially denied by the trial court but reversed by the court of appeals. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision, affirming the trial court's judgment. The parties involved are successors in title to land from the La Moca Ranch Subdivision, originally conveyed by the Rio Grande Corporation to the Veterans Land Board in 1953. The easement pertains to a roadway traversing the properties of the plaintiffs (Van Winkle and Letsos) and defendants (Jackson and Emmite).

Following a bench trial, the trial court denied the easement and subsequently, Van Winkle and Letsos filed a Motion for New Trial, followed by an Amended Motion for New Trial citing newly discovered evidence. The trial court overruled both motions within 30 days of the judgment. The Supreme Court examined whether the trial court abused its discretion in doing so, noting that the court retains plenary jurisdiction for 30 days post-judgment unless a timely motion is filed. The order overruling the motions indicated that the merits were considered. The court concluded that the trial court's actions were indeed reviewable and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying the Amended Motion for New Trial, which was based on affidavits from the time of property acquisition by the predecessors of Jackson and Emmite.

Key portions of relevant affidavits indicate that the Rio Grande Corporation dedicated certain easements for roadway access to public roads and to specific tracts within the La Moca Ranch, acknowledging that these rights are subject to existing easements. Furthermore, attorney Donato D. Ramos filed an affidavit stating that he sought evidence from the Veterans Land Board to demonstrate that the platted easements were not the sole easements affecting the La Moca Subdivision. Mr. Jack Kyzer, referred by the Board, provided documents during the trial, excluding Exhibits B and C, which were discovered only recently. Ramos filed an amended motion for a new trial based on this newly discovered evidence approximately 25 days post-judgment.

For a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, the requesting party must demonstrate: (1) the evidence was acquired post-trial; (2) the delay was not due to a lack of diligence; (3) the evidence is not cumulative; and (4) the evidence is significant enough to likely alter the trial outcome. The decision to grant or deny such motions rests within the trial court's discretion, which should not be disturbed on appeal unless there is clear legal error or an abuse of discretion. The court considers the new evidence's importance and its relation to the trial evidence. The burden of proof lies with Van Winkle and Letsos to show diligence in obtaining the Board's affidavits prior to the trial, but Ramos's affidavit indicates he only sought evidence post-trial.

Mr. Ramos and his office failed to demonstrate any attempt to search the Board records regarding the affidavits related to land purchases. It remains unclear whether these affidavits were standard policy for all purchasers from the Board or specific to the La Moca Ranch. If they were exclusive to La Moca Ranch, a similar affidavit would have been expected from Letsos, a direct purchaser from the Board. The trial court had discretion to deny the Amended Motion for New Trial due to a lack of diligence in uncovering these affidavits before the trial. The proffered affidavits indicated that purchasers acknowledged their rights were subject to existing easements, protecting the Board from future claims regarding roadway titles. Van Winkle and Letsos argued that the affidavits served as acknowledgment of easements for third parties on existing roads. The trial court was obligated to consider these affidavits alongside other evidence to assess their potential impact on the trial outcome. The court of appeals incorrectly determined an abuse of discretion occurred, misapplying the precedent set in Mitchell v. Bass, which pertains to the necessity of granting a new trial when new evidence creates doubt about the justice of a verdict. The court of appeals' judgment is reversed, affirming the trial court's decision. The case was tried before amendments to Rule 329b, which required new trial motions to be filed within ten days of judgment.