lowing 1979 Texas case of McVea v. Verkins is a good example. In this case, the landowner leased the grazing rights
to a large pasture. The lease allowed only for grazing cattle. The tenant also had a barbeque business in town. The tenant began cutting trees on the leased ranch property to burn in his barbeque business, without the knowledge or permission of the landowner. When the landlord found out about the tree cut-
ting, the landowner did not demand the tenant return the wood and pay him for the damages. Instead, the landowner fi led criminal charges against the tenant for stealing the timber and changed locks on the pasture gates to keep the tenant out. Then the landlord seized the tenant’s cattle, sold them and kept the money as payment for the damages he suffered from his trees being wrongfully cut. The landowner also sued the tenant for wrongfully
cutting his trees, but lost the lawsuit. In Texas, a land- lord cannot terminate a written lease with his tenant for breach of the lease without fi rst making a demand upon the tenant to correct the breach (McVea v. Verkins, 1979 Texas Court of Civil Appeals, 587 SW.2d 526). Texas law does not give the landlord the right to
take a tenant’s property to satisfy a landlord’s lien. The landlord must fi rst sue the tenant to enforce his lien. Then when ordered by a judge, he can keep the tenant’s personal property. Self-help, in this sense, usually does not work. Here is an example of the language that might be
used in a lease to document waste: Tenant agrees to not abuse the lease property by
overgrazing or otherwise, in any way, so as to cause damage to the landlord’s ranch. The right to graze live- stock does not give the tenant the right to use or remove timber, water, stone, gravel, dirt or any other substance for any purpose. After discussion between the parties, the landlord
may give the tenant certain additional usage rights, but this must be done in writing and signed by both parties before tenant begins any other work.
Improvements made Generally, any improvements made by the tenant
become the sole property of the landlord at the conclu- sion of the lease. Anything that becomes attached to the soil (i.e. fence posts, cattle guards, bridges, culverts, etc.) become part of the real estate and are, therefore, owned by the landlord. Here is an example of the language that might be
tscra.org
used in a lease to document the status of improvements at the end of the lease: Any improvements made by the tenant become the sole
property of the landlord at the conclusion of the lease. Permanent cattle handling facilities built by the ten-
ant at the tenant’s expense will generally become the sole property of the landowner when the lease is over. This is not so with temporary facilities. The landowner should not expect the tenant to seek
grants – such as wildlife conservation easements – to reduce taxes for the landowners where those grants are of little, if any, benefi t for the tenant.
Landlord’s lien Under the laws of most states, the landlord has a
lien against all of the tenant’s personal property on the leased premises to guarantee the tenant’s payment of lease fees, damages and other charges. A lien is a special right created by statute. Therefore,
the statute creating the lien must be followed exactly and to the letter. Failure of the landlord to do exactly what is required in the law will cause the landlord to lose the lien. The lien statutes also provide for how the lien can
be foreclosed upon and the tenant’s property sold to satisfy the lien. Again, these laws must be followed specifi cally or all
is lost. Failure to follow the lien law does not preclude the landlord from suing in court, but he must follow a more lengthy, complicated and expensive process in court as opposed to the quicker and simpler lien foreclosure. There are a few other factors to consider when
leasing land.
Nuisance In Texas, a nuisance can arise by someone causing
(a) physical harm to property, (b) physical harm to a person on his property, (c) physical harm to a person on his property from an assault on his senses (chemical odor, for instance), or (d) emotional harm to a person from the deprivation of the enjoyment of his property through fear, apprehension or loss of peace of mind. To win a nuisance lawsuit, the injured party must
prove that his interests were invaded by the defen- dant when the defendant (i) intentionally invaded his interests, or (ii) negligently invaded his interests, or (iii) did something abnormal and out of place in its surroundings (Ehler v. LVDVD, LC, 2010 Texas Court of Appeals, 319 SW.3d 817).
MORE September 2014 The Cattleman 95
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116