In 2002 Robert Crane and his wife granted their son Scott and his wife Sasha a recorded easement "for the purpose of ingress and egress" across the western portion of Robert's tract to Sasha's neighboring landlocked property, and in 2009 they conveyed part of that tract to the City of McAllen subject to easements of record.¹ Scott died, and on December 6, 2022 Sasha alleges she came home to find Robert's workers building a fence that cut off access to her home, and the next day she sued for declaratory and injunctive relief over interference with the easement.² Robert says the fence is a cedar fence on his southern and eastern property lines and that Sasha produced no evidence that it interfered with her easement.³

The trial court issued a temporary restraining order, and in September 2023 Robert moved for no-evidence summary judgment asserting there was no evidence that Sasha still owned an easement across his property or that his fence crossed any easement.¹ Sasha responded that the motion failed to specify the challenged elements and attached four exhibits, and the 476th District Court of Hidalgo County granted summary judgment on November 1, 2023 and awarded Robert $5,430 in costs and fees.² The Thirteenth Court of Appeals reversed on December 19, 2024, holding there was some evidence the easement fell on Robert's land and that his motion challenged only a factual theory and not interference.³ The Supreme Court granted review and, without oral argument, reversed in a per curiam opinion on June 26, 2026.⁴

Petition for review from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi-Edinburg); granted and decided without oral argument under Tex. R. App. P. 59.1, in a per curiam opinion issued June 26, 2026.⁵

• Robert:¹ whether the trial court correctly granted his no-evidence motion for summary judgment, and whether it correctly awarded him attorney's fees and costs.
• Sasha:² whether this Court has jurisdiction over a dispute limited to the parties, whether the court of appeals correctly held that the motion attacked a factual theory instead of an element, and whether the fee award should be remanded.

A trial court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, and a no-evidence motion must identify the elements of a claim for which there is no evidence, which the nonmovant must then rebut with evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.¹

Whether the no-evidence motion adequately identified the challenged elements.

Robert Crane (Petitioner): The court of appeals overlooked the clerk's record, Sasha produced not a scintilla of evidence that his fence interfered with her use of the easement, which was the basis of her declaratory action, and the trial court correctly granted the motion.¹ In reply, he says the court of appeals misapplied this Court's 2025 decision on forfeiture of money, which treats a no-evidence motion that describes the challenged elements in sufficient detail as adequate.²

Sasha Crane (Respondent): The court of appeals correctly held that, in an easement-interference case, Robert's motion failed to challenge the element of interference with her use and enjoyment and instead attacked a factual theory, and she met her burden with evidence that the easement existed and gave her the right to cross his land.³

Whether the Court should reach the case and the fee award.

Sasha Crane (Respondent): The issues are case-specific and offer no wider benefit to the State's jurisprudence, so the case does not warrant this Court's review, and the fee award should be remanded because Robert failed to meet his burden and she met hers.⁴

Robert Crane (Petitioner): The trial court also correctly awarded attorney's fees and costs.⁵

Robert argued that the Thirteenth Court of Appeals misapplied the summary-judgment standard and ignored the clerk's record, and Sasha responded that the issues are case-specific and do not meet the requirements for this Court's jurisdiction.¹

None noted

Holding

Robert's no-evidence motion adequately identified the challenged elements because a motion "provides adequate notice when the motion describes the challenged elements in sufficient detail to identify them," here by asserting there was no evidence that his fence "crosses any easement," the sole basis for both Sasha's declaratory and injunctive claims.¹

Reasoning

Sasha's requests for declaratory and injunctive relief both rested on the theory that the fence would cut off access and interfere with her express easement, so the only justiciable controversy and the imminent, irreparable harm she alleged were the fence's interference.² The court of appeals' contrary conclusion predated State v. $3,774.28 in U.S. Currency, which held a motion sufficient when it incorporated the plaintiff's own allegation that an element was met, and Robert's challenge was not to one of several factual theories but to the sole basis of her claims.³ Her exhibits, a title attorney's affidavit, the easement, the 2009 deed and 2019 emails, show only that she retains an easement and not that Robert interfered with it, so there was no evidence raising a fact issue and the fee award stands.⁴

Disposition

Petition granted, court of appeals' judgment reversed and the trial court's judgment reinstated.⁵

Vote Breakdown

Per Curiam Opinion

Joined by Blacklock, C.J., and Bland, Busby, Devine, Hawkins, Huddle, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.

De novo review of the grant of summary judgment.¹

Per curiam opinion.¹