Jump to content
HAIF - Houston's original social media

Larios v. Campbell


Recommended Posts

Strange story - I wonder what the outcome will be since he owns the land and technically could legally be a major DB until the judge ordered the injunction and restraining order..

A businessman who purchased parts of his neighbors' yards and driveways started building fences to block those neighbors, Local 2 Investigates reported Thursday.

A district court judge quickly stepped in and ordered him to tear the fences down, but the dispute is far from over along McHard Road near the Fort Bend Toll Road.

"It's getting worse, I think, but I hope it (will) be getting better," said Cesar Larios, who was fenced off from the driveway he had come home to for years.

The land battle started when construction company owner Jeff Campbell, who owns land nearby, bought several easements of land at a county constable's tax sale. The original settler of the land had subdivided rectangular-shaped sections of yards and driveways, thinking a major roadway would be built.

That road was never built, and when the original landowner died, the parcels of land that had been subdivided became delinquent on the Fort Bend County tax rolls. The county then sold the land and Campbell bought it without any of the adjacent homeowners knowing that part of their front yards and driveways had been subdivided or sold to begin with.

In August, Local 2 Investigates reported that Campbell was demanding tolls or access fees up to $50 per month from residents, but several homeowners filed a lawsuit in hopes of getting their land back.

Fort Bend County 434th District Court Judge Jim Shoemake had told both sides he would be ruling on the case soon, but then Campbell blocked the driveways with his trucks and workers began building fences that completely enclosed the sections Campbell had purchased, blocking the Larios family from their driveway and their property.

Their attorney, Anthony Bannwart, said, "What it did was it prevented my client from having any access to his house without trespassing on somebody else's property, as things currently stand with the court."

Judge Shoemake granted a temporary restraining order on Thursday, ruling that the fence must come down. The judge was bothered that the fence was built, despite his telling both sides not to take any further action until his ruling is issued.

2ljlver.jpg

http://www.click2houston.com/news/21603895/detail.html#

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, the law is very clear in Texas. If your land is "landlocked" with no official road touching it, you have to allow a road (or in this case, a driveway) to be built to reach the land.

Yep. It's called an easement, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - I wonder though if he will be nicer about selling the land to the homeowners since "He admitted that his neighbors had offered to buy the land from him, but added, 'The amount they want to give for it, I don't want to sell it for that. You see the situation that I'm in?'"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - I wonder though if he will be nicer about selling the land to the homeowners since "He admitted that his neighbors had offered to buy the land from him, but added, 'The amount they want to give for it, I don't want to sell it for that. You see the situation that I'm in?'"

It was polite of them to offer to buy it. Since he wants to play hardball, I'd tell him no deal on purchase anymore, I'll just take my mandatory easement across your land, please. All the better if the easement makes the small tract of land completely unusable. This vulture needs to suffer.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is basically what it comes down to:

KNOWING what is legal and DOING what is ethically and morally right.

It comes back to a post I did several years ago on the topic (which I can't find) on how if it is possible for people to be jerks and not know it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is basically what it comes down to:

KNOWING what is legal and DOING what is ethically and morally right.

Law decides what is legally right, it doesn't care what is ethically or morally right...

However, it sounds like legally this tard isnt in the right if what you guys are saying about easements and access are true.

gallery_1072_87_142742.jpg

gallery_1072_87_71868.jpg

Edited by Highway6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like one of the street name namesakes lives there, too:

281wqs0.jpg

I mean, what in the hell was the dude thinking building a wall keeping them from their home? Was he going to extort them or something?

Yep, up to $50/month for access

Link to post
Share on other sites
Statutory Easement for Landlocked Property

The law has not always been consistent regarding landlocked property in Texas. Prior to 1963, any person having land without an easement could statutorily condemn a private right-of-way to and from the property according to the Texas Revised Statutes Article 1377b(2). However, in 1963, the Texas Supreme Court held this statute contrary to Article 1, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution because it lacked public purpose. (See Estate of Waggoner v. Gleghorn, 378 S.W. 2d 47.) The second statutory attempt also failed (Texas Revised Statutes, Article 6711). It authorized the commissioners

court to declare and open a public highway, at public expense, across lands of nonconsenting owners. The action could be taken upon the sworn application of one or more landlocked landowners. This statute also lacked the necessary public purpose requirement. It was declared unconstitutional in 1962 by the Texas Supreme Court (Maher v. Lasater, 354 S.W. 2d 923.) The high court, in reversing a prior decision, wrote, "In deciding that question (case) we assumed, but did not hold, that it is of public importance that every person residing on land be provided access to and from his land so that he may enjoy the privileges and discharge the duties of a citizen." The court further stated, "The legislature may not authorize that which the consitution prohibits."

Effective Sept. 1, 1995, the Texas Legislature passed a new statute that mirrors the former Article 6711. The new law is found in Subchapter B, Chapter 251 of the Texas Transportation Code. Again, on a sworn application, a landlocked property owner may request that a road be condemned by the commissioners court. The procedure is outlined in the statute. Only time will tell whether the new law can withstand the constitutional test.

For more information, see "Don't Fence Me In," publication 1130.

http://recenter.tamu.edu/pdf/422.pdf

and http://recenter.tamu.edu/pdf/1130.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is basically what it comes down to:

KNOWING what is legal and DOING what is ethically and morally right.

It comes back to a post I did several years ago on the topic (which I can't find) on how if it is possible for people to be jerks and not know it.

.....I'm pretty sure this guy knows he's being a tool. That's why it bothers me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

a well known doctor did something similar to my parents. the doctor owned the property behind them but he blocked them from accessing their property by putting a lock on the common gate. it was quickly resolved by the current land commissioner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
His daughter posted in the on-line comments and played the 'Jesus' card. I guess that settles it. He's guilty.

Heh.

I am Jeff Campbell's daughter. My dad has come home with injuries from the neighbors. But, he is still a strong believer in Christ. He resembles Christ in everything he does. Good luck tearing him dowm channel 2!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh.

I am Jeff Campbell's daughter. My dad has come home with injuries from the neighbors. But, he is still a strong believer in Christ. He resembles Christ in everything he does. Good luck tearing him dowm channel 2!!!

Ha! So is this what Jesus would do, then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...