The State of Texas v. Miller Machine & Welding, Inc. (No. 14-23-00201-CV; May 7, 2024) arose from an adverse possession claim for title to part of a railroad right-of-way originally granted by a landowner to the Galveston, LaPorte and Houston Railway Company in 1895. The landowner’s property eventually was transferred to a Seabrook developer. In about 1980 Miller began leasing part of the right-of-way from the railroad for his welding business, relying on the railroad’s representation that it owned the property. He expanded his operations over the years, continuing to pay rent, until 2017, when the railroad informed him that it was terminating the lease. According to the railroad, it was transferring the land to the state for expansion of Highway 146, which abutted the property on one side. Miller filed a trespass-to-try-title suit, asserting title by adverse possession and that his claim was superior to the “lost heirs” of the original landowner. The state intervened as a defendant. After a bench trial, the trial court awarded title to Miller. The state appealed.
In an opinion by Chief Justice Christopher, the court of appeals reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment against Miller. The court found it necessary to resolve only one of the state’s issues to dispose of the case: whether a claimant who has paid rent and occupied land as a tenant could prove title by adverse possession. The court held that such a claimant could not. In order to establish adverse possession, the court reasoned, a “claimant’s possession must be inconsistent with and hostile to the claims of all others” (citations omitted). In this case, however, Miller entered onto and occupied the premises as a lessee of the railroad, not with an intent to claim “exclusive” ownership against all comers. If Miller had repudiated the lease and notified the railroad of his intent to assert exclusive ownership, that would been a different matter. But until then, property leased to a tenant by a landlord is, under Texas law, “considered to be the possession of the landlord,” even if the landlord is not the record owner of title (citations omitted).
