Marcus Cable Associates v. Krohn

Texas Court of Appeals, Waco · 2002 · Property

PropertyTrespassLimitationsInjunctive reliefMootnesstrespassstatute of limitationsdiscovery rule

Facts

The Krohns bought an 11.764-acre tract in 1984, and electric utility poles already crossed the property under an easement held by Hill County Electric Cooperative. Under an agreement with the Cooperative, Marcus installed a cable television line on those poles in 1985 or 1986, and the Krohns noticed the line around the time of installation but chose not to act. In 1997, while building a new home, the Krohns found that the line interfered with access by tall trucks and demanded that Marcus raise or remove it. Marcus refused, and the Krohns sued for trespass, damages, and injunctive relief.

Issue

Whether the Krohns' trespass claim for damages was barred by the two-year statute of limitations despite their reliance on the discovery rule and continuing tort theory, and whether their request for injunctive relief was moot after removal of the cable line from the 11.764-acre tract.

Rule

A trespass action is subject to a two-year limitations period running from accrual, and accrual generally occurs when the wrongful act causes legal injury, regardless of when the plaintiff learns of the injury or whether all damages have occurred. The discovery rule must be pleaded, and if raised only in response to summary judgment it is waived when the defendant objects. A continuing tort requires repeated injury caused by repetitive wrongful acts, not continuing injury from one wrongful act. A trespass that is sufficiently constant or regular such that future impact can be reasonably evaluated is permanent, and the continuing tort doctrine does not apply to such a permanent injury to land. A request for injunctive relief is moot when no live controversy remains because the complained-of condition has been removed from the property at issue.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In 2014, Prairie Signal Systems strung an unauthorized fiber line across Elena Ruiz's ranch outside Lubbock, Texas, using existing poles. Elena saw the line that year but did nothing until 2019, when she began subdividing the ranch and discovered the line interfered with tall survey equipment.

If Prairie moves for summary judgment on limitations in Elena's trespass action for damages, what is the strongest basis for granting the motion?

Explanation. A trespass claim is governed by a two-year limitations period, and accrual occurs when the wrongful act causes legal injury. Under the majority opinion, a single unauthorized placement of a line across land causes legal injury at installation, even if later consequences become more serious. So the later subdivision problems do not restart accrual.