dominion under the statute. 11 Dominion is not the same as actual possession OR adverse possession. 12 That is, what may constitute dominion under Art. 16.029 may well never qualify as adverse possession under the Texas adverse possession statutes. Dominion under Article 5519a is not the equivalent of actual possession, but will ordinarily be something less than that. Therefore, this dominion may be an accumulation of incidents which separately may affect only a part of the land claimed but which show as a whole that the claimant has assumed to exercise control of all of said land throughout the 25 year statutory period. 13 Moreover, the type and quality of the land itself will govern what is and is not dominion under the statute. For example, what constitutes dominion for uninhabited timber land may well be different from cultivated farmland which is/is not inhabited. What constitutes dominion for purposes of the statute appears to be a fact issue in each case which the title proponent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence. 14 Further, the classification of the estate in the lands at issue being claimed will also directly impact what acts constitute dominion under the statute. For instance, a title claimant asserting title to the mineral estate only will have a totally different evidentiary proof requirement from a title claimant asserting fee simple title ownership of the tract at issue. 15 5 Art. 16.029 (a)(2) 6 Generally, Business and Commerce Code, Title 3., Chapter 26 7 Art. 16.029 (a)(2) 8 Wiggins v. Houston Oil Co. of Texas, 203 S.W.2d 252, 258 (CCA - 1947) 9 Wiggins v. Houston Oil Co. of Texas, 203 S.W.2d 252 (CCA - 1947) 10 Wiggins v. Houston Oil Co. of Texas, 203 S.W.2d 252 (CCA - 1947) 11 Wiggins v. Houston Oil Co. of Texas, 203 S.W.2d 252, 259 (CCA - 1947) 12 See Endnote 1 13 Wiggins v. Houston Oil Co. of Texas, 203 S.W.2d 252, 259 (CCA - 1947) (emphasis added) 14 Wiggins v. Houston Oil Co. of Texas, 203 S.W.2d 252 (CCA - 1947) 15 Wiggins v. Houston Oil Co. of Texas, 203 S.W.2d 252 (CCA - 1947)
• Part Two - Dominion/Claim In the above example, D&E must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they asserted dominion over the lands at issue as well as asserted a claim to the land. 5 What case law there is on this part of the Dominion Statute devotes 95% of all analysis to what is and what is not dominion for purposes of the statute. The cases do not address what constitutes the assertion of a claim to the lands at issue except obliquely. That is, how is a claim asserted? Can the assertion of a claim be made orally? Who has to hear the verbal claim? Does a claim to lands under the statute have to comply with the Statute of Frauds? 6 Can a claim to lands under the statute be made to a third party who has no ownership interest whatsoever in the lands at issue? The author could not find any answers to these questions in the cases dealing with the Dominion Statute as previously or presently constituted. Clearly, under the statute, the claim and act of dominion must have been made for the twenty-five year time period as detailed in the statute (25 years immediately preceding the filing of the suit). 7 Beyond that, case law only makes one clear statement on exactly what a claim is and is not. Dominion obviously refers to conduct under claim. The same act, of course, might prove both claim and dominion; but an act which expresses claim might not amount to dominion. The term dominion, distinguished as it is from claim suggests conduct upon the land itself, such as a patrol across the land to determine whether trespassers have settled upon it; and this court has held that such patrols constitute acts of dominion. Duke v. Houston Oil Company, Tex.Civ.App., 128 S.W.2d 480. 8 Although not an absolute statement, it appears that the court in the above quote does affirm that, if the title claimant affirmatively proves that it exercised dominion over the lands at issue then, by its act of dominion, it also made a claim to the lands at issue. Logically, it follows that a title claimant, exercising dominion over the lands at issue (as hereinbelow defined) must also be making a claim to the lands as well. The above quote is the only direct statement the author could find on the definition of a claim under the Dominion Statute. Dominion on the other hand is much better defined by the courts. Dominion is an act made under a claim. 9 It requires some physical contact with the lands at issue. 10 The mere delivery of a deed without some physical act connected directly to the lands at issue does NOT constitute
21
G rowth T hrough E ducat i on - J anuary / F ebruary / M arch 2026
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator