# Boerschig v. Rio Grande Elec. Coop., Inc. Supreme Court of Texas, No. 24-0213 **Boerschig v. Rio Grande Elec. Coop., Inc., No. 24-0213 (Tex. May 22, 2026). Holding: Legally sufficient evidence supports the jury's finding of an easement by estoppel, because an unrecorded writing by a prior owner represented that an easement was being conveyed, the cooperative detrimentally relied on it in building the original line, and the purchaser knew of the line when he bought; but the upgraded line exceeds the scope of that easement as a matter of law, so Rio Grande trespassed.** Practice areas: real property, electricity ## Key issues - A rural electric cooperative holds an easement by estoppel over a ranch for its distribution line, based on an unrecorded writing by a prior owner, its detrimental reliance, and the purchaser's knowledge of the line. - But the cooperative's upgrade, which tripled the poles and nearly doubled the wires to serve a new customer and substation, exceeded the easement's scope as a matter of law, so the Court rendered judgment for the landowner on trespass. ## Factual History In 1947 Rio Grande Electric Cooperative acquired a document titled "Right of Way Easement," signed by the executor of the Clamp estate, that gave an unspecified corporation the right to build an electric distribution line on 5,684 acres, with "only single pole" at pole locations to cause the least interference with farm operations; Rio Grande never recorded it (Opinion, PDF p. 3). Rio Grande then built a line across about 1.6 miles of the property consisting of between seventeen and twenty wooden poles, each thirty feet high and carrying four wires on one crossarm (Opinion, PDF pp. 3, 5). John Boerschig bought the ranch in 2002 after seeing the line, which he testified was "hard to miss," and a survey showed its route, but the Dooley Document was not in the real property records (Opinion, PDF pp. 3, 14; Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 15). In 2012 Rio Grande told Boerschig it would replace and add to the line to serve a new Lone Star Gas compressor station and a new substation, and by 2014 the new line used sixty fiberglass-composite poles thirty-seven feet high carrying seven wires on two crossarms (Opinion, PDF pp. 4-5). ## Procedural History Boerschig sued Rio Grande for trespass, obtained a temporary restraining order, and eventually agreed not to oppose continued construction while reserving his trespass claim (Opinion, PDF pp. 4-5). At a jury trial the jury answered "no" on an enforceable written easement and a prescriptive easement, but by a 10-2 verdict found that Rio Grande held an easement by estoppel, and the trial court rendered judgment that Rio Grande held an easement by estoppel and that the upgrade did not exceed its scope (Opinion, PDF pp. 6-7). The Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio) affirmed, holding the jury could consider the Dooley Document in deciding whether a representation was made (Opinion, PDF p. 7). The vehicle in this Court is a petition for review filed by Boerschig, argued November 6, 2025, and decided May 22, 2026 (Opinion, PDF pp. 1, 28). ## Issues Presented The Court framed two issues (Opinion, PDF pp. 1-2): 1. Whether an electric cooperative holds an easement by estoppel for its distribution line across the ranch. 2. If so, whether the cooperative's upgrade, which tripled the poles and nearly doubled the wires, exceeded the scope of that easement. Boerschig frames the issues as whether a 1947 writing that was at best an offer to use the land, with no authority to transfer a property interest, can support an easement by estoppel, and whether Rio Grande's upgrade to serve a new industrial customer is within it (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 13). ## Standard(s) of Review Boerschig challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's easement-by-estoppel finding, and he argued that the upgrade exceeded the easement's scope as a matter of law (Opinion, PDF pp. 7-8, 17). The Court noted that estoppel is an affirmative defense to trespass on which Rio Grande bore the burden (Opinion, PDF p. 16). ## Legal Arguments **Whether Rio Grande holds an easement by estoppel.** **Boerschig (Petitioner):** RGEC cannot transform what was at best permission to build the 1947 line into an easement, because the unenforceable Dooley document cannot support one and none of the elements or purposes of easements by estoppel are present, since there was no representation by a landowner with authority to grant one (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF p. 19; Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 13, 15). **Rio Grande (Respondent):** For decades the Court has treated easements by estoppel as an exception to the conveyance statutes, and the jury confirmed that a landowner represented to Rio Grande, by words and actions, that it possessed an easement, not mere permission, to build, maintain, and upgrade infrastructure on the route (Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF p. 10; Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 8). **Whether the upgrade exceeded the scope of the easement.** **Boerschig (Petitioner):** In 2012 Rio Grande entered without notice and bulldozed the poles, replacing them with much more substantial poles spaced closer together carrying more lines to supply a new industrial client, and Rio Grande could have paid for an easement or used eminent domain (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 15; Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF p. 19). **Rio Grande (Respondent):** Its easement included the right to "upgrade" the infrastructure on the route (Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 8). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case Boerschig argued that the court of appeals erred in affirming an easement by estoppel based on an unrecorded and unenforceable writing, when none of the elements or purposes of such easements are present (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF pp. 11, 19). ## Oral Argument - **Swallowing the statute of frauds.** Asked why a defective document is not evidence of the estoppel exception, Boerschig's counsel said it would swallow the statute of frauds if merely identifying the property sufficed. (Oral Argument, 0:11:57) - **No promise in the document.** Boerschig's counsel said no case holds a document like this insufficient, but there is no promise to anyone in it. (Oral Argument, 0:13:34) - **Narrow reading.** Asked whether an easement by estoppel gets a broad reading, Boerschig's counsel said a written easement can be read broadly, but one by estoppel is narrow. (Oral Argument, 0:09:48) - **Limiting principle.** Asked for a limiting principle, Rio Grande's counsel said an easement by estoppel is like any easement once established, and the jury was told scope was fixed by 1947 use. (Oral Argument, 0:20:40) ## Practice Area Tags real-property, electricity ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Petition for review from the Fourth Court of Appeals (San Antonio) after a jury trial; argued November 6, 2025, and decided May 22, 2026 (Opinion, PDF pp. 1, 7, 28). ## Amicus Involvement - [Texas Farm Bureau](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=95864558-4074-4caf-a5bd-2efcad18336a&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=9c592beb-4799-49ce-a300-5d3a38305005): protection of private property rights is central to Texas law, given that over ninety-six percent of Texas land is privately owned. - [Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC, et al.](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=6fe7dae5-adb3-4c10-9fdc-47042697a72c&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=498621ea-7fce-4bc0-aedb-2faa324bd96f): transmission and distribution facilities are the backbone of the electric grid serving millions of Texans. - [Texas Land & Mineral Owners Association](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=fd8b9cec-d3da-4ec3-b2dc-44b3c9ee7a2e&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=45fad223-4192-4165-b97d-578ca86931c6), [Texas Civil Justice League](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=477f4960-375a-4129-88fb-7a284b66caeb&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=420de799-4639-4849-a20a-865aa109165f), [Texas Pipeline Association](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=d5ec44d1-d1bd-4126-ae66-9c929ad94056&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=61cfbaba-4b5f-43e7-880e-499223f60398), [Texas Electric Cooperatives, Inc.](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=cc8e6262-a2e2-4fe6-bc84-567b91a00037&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=2143edc9-c36e-4285-8157-c22725e0f1c6), and [Dr. Andrew Sansom](https://search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=29982fa3-e219-4b8b-8d0b-ca4edcce0bdd&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=a10577c7-6892-467c-a6f2-c3b2c90a51a9) also filed amicus briefs or letters. ## Holding Legally sufficient evidence supports the jury's finding of an easement by estoppel, because an unrecorded writing by a prior owner represented that an easement was being conveyed, the cooperative detrimentally relied on it in building the original line, and the purchaser knew of the line when he bought; but the upgraded line exceeds the scope of that easement as a matter of law, so Rio Grande trespassed (Opinion, PDF pp. 2, 14-15, 25-27). ## Court's Reasoning **The easement by estoppel.** An easement ordinarily requires a signed and recorded writing, but the owner of the burdened estate may be estopped to deny an easement on proof of a representation that an easement would be conveyed, belief in it, and detrimental reliance (Opinion, PDF pp. 8-9). A writing that fails as an express easement can be some evidence of the representation element, and the Dooley Document, which provides for a specific and definite use, together with Rio Grande's construction and maintenance of the line for decades, was legally sufficient evidence (Opinion, PDF pp. 9-13, 15). Boerschig had actual notice of the 1947 line, so he is presumed to have bought subject to that visible encumbrance (Opinion, PDF pp. 14-15). **Scope.** The scope of an easement by estoppel is limited to the representations made by the landowner, narrowed by the holder's actual uses in reasonable reliance on them, and narrowed further, if the land has been sold, by the purchaser's notice of those representations or uses at the time of purchase (Opinion, PDF pp. 19-22). Neither a jury nor a court may speculate about the unexpressed purpose behind such an easement or ask whether an expanded use is foreseeable or materially more burdensome (Opinion, PDF p. 23). Activities reasonably necessary to continue the existing use, such as access, repairs, and maintenance, remain within the easement (Opinion, PDF p. 24). **Application.** The only investment Rio Grande made in reliance on the 1947 document was the lower-voltage line of seventeen to twenty poles on its 1.6-mile route, Boerschig had no actual or inquiry notice of the Dooley Document, and Rio Grande's CEO testified that the upgrade was to serve new customers, so there was no evidence it was reasonably necessary to continue the existing use (Opinion, PDF pp. 25-27). Rio Grande remains free to condemn an expanded easement through eminent domain (Opinion, PDF p. 28). **Separate writings.** Justice Hawkins, concurring, explained that easements by estoppel may include closely related ancillary uses that are de minimis and reasonably necessary to continue the existing use, that close calls are for juries, but that this case must be resolved as a matter of law because the improvements materially expanded the intrusion beyond Boerschig's notice (Hawkins, J., concurring, PDF pp. 1-2). Justice Bland, joined by Chief Justice Blacklock and Justices Lehrmann and Huddle, dissented, arguing that the Court countermands the jury's verdict that the upgrade stayed within the easement and shifts the burden of proof from the landowner to the easement holder (Bland, J., dissenting, PDF p. 1). ## Disposition Court of appeals' judgment reversed, judgment rendered that Rio Grande trespassed on Boerschig's property by constructing the upgraded line, and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings regarding appropriate relief (Opinion, PDF pp. 27-28). ## Vote Breakdown Justice Busby delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Devine, Young, Sullivan, and Hawkins (Opinion, PDF p. 1). Justice Hawkins filed a concurring opinion, and Justice Bland filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Blacklock and Justices Lehrmann and Huddle (Opinion, PDF p. 1). --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/24-0213. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.