Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-24-00306-CV ________________ JOHN P. SUITTS AND KELLY A. MARCHMAN-SUITTS, Appellants V. RUDY R. AMADOR AND CAROLYN S. AMADOR, Appellees ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 457th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23-05-07672-CV ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellants John P. Suitts and Kelly A. Marchman-Suitts (collectively referred to as “the Suitts”) argue that the trial court erred in submitting a jury question which allowed the jury to find an easement by estoppel on the Suitts’ property when there is no easement by estoppel as a matter of law. The Suitts also complain the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict on one of the claims based on its conclusion that limitations bars the Suitts’ continuous trespass claim when the injury to their 1 property was not permanent. The Appellees Rudy R. Amador and Carolyn S. Amador (collectively referred to as “the Amadors”) filed a cross-appeal but this Court granted the Amadors’ motion to dismiss their cross-appeal. See Suitts v. Amador, No. 09-24-00306-CV, 2025 WL 2473239 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Aug. 28, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.). For the reasons explained below, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. BACKGROUND The Suitts, the owners of Lot 59 in the Pebble Glen on the Lake Subdivision (“the Suitts Property”) filed suit against the Amadors, their neighbors who own Lot 58 (“the Amadors Property”). Both properties are waterfront lots on Lake Conroe, and the northern boundary line of the Suitts Property and the southern boundary of the Amadors Property are on the same line (“the common boundary line”). Both properties are subject to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of the subdivision (hereafter referred to as “the Restrictions”), which provide that: [A]ny Lot Owner is authorized to prosecute proceedings at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting to violate these Covenants and Restrictions and to prevent him or them from doing so and/or recover damages or dues for such violations. The plat of the subdivision includes building lines. The Suitts Property has a five-foot building setback area along the common boundary, and the Amador Property has no building setback along the common boundary line. The Amadors’ residence is located less than five inches from the common boundary line. The plat 2 does not burden the Suitts Property with an easement in favor of the Amador Property. The Restrictions do not contain an easement allowing the Amadors to enter the Suitts Property. The Restrictions contain what the parties call a “view easement” provision requiring owners of lakefront lots not to obstruct another neighbor’s view of Lake Conroe. The Restrictions establish utility easements, including (1) a ten-foot utility easement at the front of the Suitts Property and the Amador Property; (2) a dedicated five-foot wide Entergy Utility Company easement extending from the surface of the ground downward and two and one half feet on each side of the underground electric service lines and extending along the route selected by Entergy Utility Company; and (3) the reserved right to grant a further utility easement at a later date for the purpose of erection, construction, maintenance, repairs, the continuous placement of an electrical lighting system, and to clear and remove obstructions such as trees and other landscaping. The Suitts’ causes of action against the Amadors include: a violation of section 11.086 of the Texas Water Code for wrongfully diverting and/or impounding the natural flow of surface water onto the Suitts Property; trespass by water diversion without an easement; an action to enforce deed restrictions; trespass; and a request for a declaratory judgment. The Suitts sought a declaration that: the Amadors do not have an easement for entry onto any portion of the Suitts Property; the Amadors do 3 not have an easement for the use of the Suitts Property; the Amadors do not have an easement for the maintenance of the Amadors Property by means of entry onto the Suitts Property; the Amadors do not have a utility easement which burdens the Suitts Property; the Amadors do not have any other easement burdening the Suitts Property, except for a view easement on the lake side of the Suitts Property; the Amadors’ gas meter is located without permission on the Suitts Property and constitutes a trespass; the Amador’s Generac panel extends without permission onto the Suitts Property and constitutes a trespass; and the Amadors’ electric meter extends without permission onto the Suitts Property and constitutes a trespass. Concerning the trespasses, the Suitts alleged that the Amadors trespassed and continue to trespass on the Suitts Property by diverting water drainage onto the Suitts Property and by physically entering the Suitts Property, either personally or through their contractors, and placing equipment, including a gas meter, electric meter, Generac panel, sprinkler and water line. The Suitts alleged that the Amadors violated the view easement in the Restrictions by planting trees and plants along the common boundary line and obstructing the Suitts’ view of Lake Conroe. The Suitts also alleged that the Amadors violated the Texas Water Code and Restrictions therein by raising their driveway and backyard, tying their drain lines into a drain line on the Suitts Property, interfering with the established drainage pattern, and diverting the drainage of surface water onto the Suitts Property. 4 The Suitts requested a temporary and permanent injunction enjoining the Amadors and their guests, invitees, agents, or assigns from entering any portion of the Suitts Property to prevent further damage to their property due to the Amadors’ diversion of the natural flow of surface water. The Suitts requested that the permanent injunction include ordering the removal of the Amadors’ gas meter, electric meter, and Generac panel from the Suitts Property. The Suitts also requested damages and to recover their costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees. The Amadors filed an Original Anwer generally denying the Suitts’ claims and asserting other defenses including the doctrine of unclean hands, estoppel, laches, waiver, prior agreement, and limitations. The Amadors explained that the Restrictions permit the construction of homes on Lots 58 and 59, which both have a zero-setback requirement which requires access on the neighbor’s lot along the common boundary line to perform maintenance and repairs on the home built along the line with the zero setback. The Amadors filed a Counterclaim, asserting that they are entitled to use the five-foot setback area described in the plat for the purposes of performing maintenance and repairs of their home. The Amadors maintained that they are entitled to such limited access and use pursuant to the Restrictions, an easement by estoppel, easement by prescription, easement by necessity, and means of declaratory relief. The Amadors asserted that the Suitts also diverted the natural flow of water on the Amadors Property. 5 In 2013, the Amadors purchased the home on Lot 58, and their home’s electric service and meter, gas service and meter, and cable service were installed in 2003 when the home was built. The Generac generator and interconnect were installed in 2016 with the consent and in compliance with the requirements of the Architectural Control Committee (“ACC”) and City of Conroe. The Amadors argued that from 2003 until 2023, when the Suitts filed suit, the owners of the Amador Property had continued uninterrupted use and access to the Suitts Property’s five-foot setback area for the purposes of maintaining and repairing the home on the Amador Property. The prior owners of the Amador Property, Charles and Barbara Rosok (“the Rosoks”), installed a drain line within the Suitts’ five-foot setback area with the Suitts’ consent. The Amadors installed an additional drain line and a French drain within the Suitts’ five-foot setback area along with fill and sod, and the Suitts contributed to the cost and allowed the Amadors to connect their outdoor kitchen sink to the drain line. The Amadors denied that they raised the elevation of their driveway when they replaced it and claimed that the new driveway drains rainwater away from the Suitts Property. Prior to trial, the trial court denied the Suitts’ No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment as to the Amadors’ claims for an easement under the deed restrictions, easement by estoppel, and easement by necessity, and granted the Suitts’ Motion as to the Amadors’ claims for easement by prescription and water diversion. The trial court conducted a jury trial. 6 John P. Suitts (“John”) testified that he is married to Kelly Marchman-Suitts (“Kelly”). John explained that they filed suit against the Amadors because the Amadors did not respect the Suitts’ property rights and made claims against the Suitts Property that were not based on a written easement. In 2007, the Suitts purchased the Suitts Property, and in December 2009, when the Suitts moved in, their neighbors, the Rosoks, were selling their home to the Amadors. John explained that his property and the Amador Property have a common boundary line and that the Amadors claim to have some sort of easement that allows them to access his property. John testified that the plat of the Subdivision does not show the Amadors have any sort of easement to use his property. John explained that the plat shows there is a five-foot building line but no utility easement between his property and the Amador Property, and that the plat does not show there is a drainage or access easement on his property. Concerning Lake Conroe’s water level, the plat shows the San Jacinto River Authority has a flowage and inundation easement up to 207 mean sea level, and the plat provides that all structures must have a minimum floor elevation of 207 feet. The plat states that all lots have a zero side and rear building line unless otherwise noted. John testified that his complaints included the Amadors having their natural gas meter and electric meter on his property. John explained that the Amadors’ countersuit alleges they have a three-foot-wide easement along the side of the Suitts 7 Property. John testified that the plat shows the front of his property has a ten-foot- wide utility easement along the street. The plat also shows there is a dedicated five- foot-wide Entergy Utility Company (“Entergy”) easement extending from the surface of the ground downward extending two and a half feet on the side of underground electric service lines and upon the route selected by Entergy to the electric meter as located upon lots in the Subdivision. John testified that the Amadors’ home is built over Entergy’s easement as the home is within two and a half feet of that easement. John testified that the Subdivision’s Restrictions allow residential dwellings to be built to the side lot line, but John explained that his house was built two feet from the lot line to allow room to paint and fix his home. John agreed that the Restrictions state that there is a reserved right on behalf of the Subdivision’s owner and any public utility company to “grant upon, across and over each Lot an easement and license along the perimeter boundaries of each Lot to the width of three feet measured from each boundary line of each Lot, protruding from each boundary line into the interior portion of each Lot, for the purpose of erection, construction, maintenance, repairs and continuous placement of an electrical lighting system throughout the Property[.]” John testified that there is no electrical lighting system along his property line. The Restrictions also reserve the express right on behalf of each of the Subdivision’s owner and any public utility company to “enter upon any 8 Lot for the purpose of construction, installation, maintenance, repair and . . . to remove any obstruction as might exist within this designated area, and such shall not be deemed to be a trespass in any respect to the rights of the Owner of the Lot[.]” John explained that the Restrictions provide that no owner may enter upon an adjacent lot for the purpose of ingress or egress to his own lot during or after construction unless the adjacent lot owner has given written approval. John testified that on one occasion, the Amadors asked for his permission via text message to enter his property to paint, and John gave the Amadors permission. The Restrictions also provide that the owner of any lot must provide the ACC a drainage plan in the event of any construction, and with the ACC’s approval, the owner can establish an alternate drainage plan for low areas. John testified the north side of his property is habitually wet due to water coming between the building and off the Amadors’ roof. John explained that the Restrictions require excavation from swimming pools to be hauled from the site, but when the Amadors installed a swimming pool, they blocked the flow of water by using the excavation to build up their deck. John was seeking to enforce the Restrictions against the Amadors for draining water onto his property and for having their gas meter, electrical meter, and Generac panel on his property despite not having an easement. John refuted the Amadors’ allegations that the Amadors’ predecessors in title installed the underground drains on the Suitts Property. John 9 explained that the underground drains were initially installed when his home was built and that he personally tied in an additional drain line to help the Rosoks, the Amadors predecessors in title. John explained that in the two years prior to filing suit in May 2023, John gave Rudy Amador written permission once to enter the Suitts Property, but the Amadors continued to enter the Suitts Property without permission. Since filing suit, John had not given the Amadors permission to enter his property, but the Amadors “just sent workmen over.” John testified that his deed to the Suitts Property does not give the developer of the Subdivision a reserved easement across his property, and the deed to the Amador Property does not grant the Rosoks or Amadors an easement across the Suitts Property. John testified that an October 2021 encroachment survey of the Suitts Property shows there is a little more than two feet between the Suitts Property and the Amador Property and that the Amadors’ gas meter, electric meter, Generac panel, and gutter extend onto his property. John did not authorize the Amadors to come onto the Suitts’ Property to service their Generac panel or to do yardwork, and John stated that he believed the Amadors installed a fence along their driveway in response to the criminal trespass warning. John did not authorize Rudy to enter his property to install a fence, gate, plastic trim, or rock. John stated that he was intimidated when Rudy entered his yard while wearing his law enforcement uniform. 10 John testified that on May 21, 2022, he observed Rudy direct somebody from the Amador Property when they entered his yard and adjusted his yard light without his permission. John testified that a video from May 29, 2022, shows Rudy entering his property and kicking over a security light. On August 13, 2022, Rudy received a criminal trespass warning not to enter the Suitts Property, and John testified that the Amadors installed the fence and continued to send technicians onto his property after that date. John testified that a video from October 13, 2022, shows Rudy entering his property and kicking over a survey stake. John testified that the Amadors had not personally entered his property since October 13, 2022. John agreed that “in general,” the Amadors would “have to walk through our property[]” to maintain or repair the south side of their home. John stood by his testimony that it was not physically possible to work on the Amador Property without entering his property. Both the Suitts’ survey and the Amadors’ survey show a five-foot setback area but no easement on the Suitts Property in favor of the Amador Property. John explained that the concrete from the Amadors’ pool installation blocked the natural flow of water off the Suitts Property. John stated that the Amadors built their pool deck above the natural grade by using the spoil out of the hole instead of hauling it off. John explained that he was asking for the Amadors to install drainage to catch the water from their gutters as required by the Restrictions. John also explained that the Amadors were draining the gray water from their sink into his drain line that 11 exits through his bulkhead. John testified that he gave the Amadors permission to tie into his PVC pipes to do their rear outdoor kitchen and other improvements but did not give them permission to route other lines, including a sewer line, onto the Suitts Property. John stated that his property did not have a side lot utility easement, but the plat of the Subdivision shows that other lots in the Subdivision have a ten-foot building line with a utility and drainage easement. John testified that the Amadors did not ask him for an easement either before or after the Amadors purchased the Amador Property in August 2013. John agreed that prior to building his home, the Rosoks were living in the Amadors’ home and that the electrical meter, gas meter, telecommunications box, and gutter system were already in place. John complained that the Amadors continued to place items on his property without permission. John filed suit to keep the Amadors from trespassing and encroaching on his property. John did not have evidence of any actual damages he sustained due to the Amadors’ trespasses and sought only nominal damages for the trespasses during the two-year period prior to filing suit as well as attorney’s fees for his other causes of action. Mark Czarnecki testified that in 2000, he purchased Lot 57 in the Subdivision, and he explained that his lot is empty and that he has a fence between his lot and the Amador Property. Czarnecki explained that the Amadors have paved a lot of the area on the side of their home and put up a fence in the wrong place. Czarnecki testified 12 that the Amadors’ concrete deck is about four feet from the fenceline and the elevation of the Amadors’ pool is higher than the fence. Czarnecki explained the Amadors have a Generac generator in the area between his lot and theirs and that the generator is “clearly” on the Amador Property, but within the five-foot setback or no build line. Czarnecki stated the lots, which were “very narrow[,]” are forty-five feet wide with a five-foot offset for utilities or a sidewalk down the side of the home. Derek Wind, a professional civil engineer who specializes in water resources, testified that in the Fall of 2020, the Suitts hired him to evaluate the drainage at their home. Wind inspected the Suitt Property, took photographs, reviewed photographs and records, relied on LiDAR data from 2008 and 2018 that provided topographical information, and prepared a report. Wind testified that the Amadors’ installation of a swimming pool around 2016 to 2017 changed the general direction of the flow of drainage because the Amadors significantly changed the elevation by using fill and raising the elevation “in the range of a half a foot up to close to three feet.” Wind explained that the raising of the Amador Property can redirect the natural flow of water and potentially block the flow and not allow the water to drain as before. Wind also testified that water could be potentially trapped in the lower area between the Suitt Property and the pool side of the Amador Property because the Amadors raised their backyard area and impeded the drainage flow. 13 Wind stated that the Suitts have an underground drain, which would help alleviate the problem caused by the Amadors’ pool. Wind did not observe any evidence that the Amadors were collecting and disposing of the water they were impounding by building a pool deck up to three feet above the natural grade. Wind also found that the drainage from the Amadors’ roof was being discharged onto the Suitts Property as it was likely coming down the Amadors’ downspouts and being tied into the Suitts’ drainage pipe that flows to Lake Conroe. Wind explained that the Amadors also redirected the flow of water toward the Suitts Property by cutting a trench drain in their driveway to collect drainage and route it in a different direction away from their garage. Wind opined that due to the drainage from the Amador Property, the natural flow of water has either been blocked or redirected in a way that either returns to the Suitts Property or prevents drainage that previously left the Suitts Property from being able to drain. Wind explained that the Amadors should have an engineer design a gutter system to drain water to Lake Conroe and a solution to catch and dispose of the water the Amador property was impounding around their pool. On cross-examination, Wind testified that he was not sure whether water was being impounded by the pool area and that it “appears it could be redirected.” Wind had not personally observed any impounding or redirection of water from the Amador Property or viewed photographs or video depicting such. Wind agreed that 14 the contour lines on the Suitt Property from 2008 and 2018 were dramatically different and that the LiDAR data he relied upon is known to be accurate within approximately six inches. Wind also agreed that the data from 2008 and 2018 combined could have a total one-foot variance. Wind testified that the data also showed that an area along the property line was lower in 2018 after the Amadors installed the pool and that the area drains to Lake Conroe. Wind was not sure whether there was any impounding of water, and if there was any impounding, it would have been that way since the Amadors’ house was built in 2004 or since the pool was installed in 2016. Wind testified that the water redirected by the pool drains toward the Suitts Property and flows into Lake Conroe. Wind agreed that his opinion would change regarding the Suitts’ drain line if the parties had agreed to connect the Amadors’ gutter. John’s wife, Kelly Marchman-Suitts (“Kelly”), testified that she met the Amadors in 2014, after they bought the Rosoks’ home. Kelly did not have any conversations with the Amadors prior to their purchase of the Rosok home. After the Amadors moved in, which was in late 2014 or early 2015, there were times when the Amadors came onto the Suitts Property without permission and the Amadors’ entries became more intrusive over time. There were also times that the Suitts gave the Amadors permission to come onto their property. In August 2021, the Amadors reroofed their home and left items on the Suitts Property without asking to access 15 the Suitts Property. Kelly felt like the Amadors invaded her privacy when they installed a camara that pointed directly into her window and set off an alarm when anyone walked past it outside. Kelly explained that on one occasion after the Suitts had their property surveyed, she heard the alarm sound and went outside and encountered Carolyn Amador (“Carolyn”), who was carrying a tape measure and using foul language and calling Kelly names. Kelly testified that the wrought iron gate that Rudy gave the Suitts and installed on the Suitts Property prevented her from working on the side of her home at times. Kelly explained that after the Amadors installed a pool, Rudy pressured her about better drainage after the Suitts tried to be courteous and let the Amadors tie into their drainage. Kelly testified that the Amadors were supposed to use Amador Property to take their own drainage. Kelly stated that in 2021, after the Suitts had replaced their bulkhead, Rudy told her she had to take his water runoff. Kelly observed Rudy kick over the Suitts’ survey stakes and stated the Amadors had cussed at her when she pointed out their gas meter and Generac panel are over the property line. Kelly testified that Rudy told her there was a three-foot easement down the property line that allowed his utilities to be placed on the Suitts Property, but Kelly disagreed and stated there was no such easement. Kelly wanted the Amadors and their workers to stay off her property. Kelly explained that in the two years prior to 16 filing suit in May 2023, she did not give the Amadors permission to come onto her property. Kelly explained that the Amadors had sued them, claiming they had an easement, but there was no easement in favor of the Amadors in the Restrictions. Kelly stated that she felt intimated when Rudy came onto her property while wearing his police uniform. Kelly explained that she viewed the video showing that during the night, Rudy pulled his shirt over his head to disguise himself when he kicked over the light in her yard. Kelly also viewed the video that showed Rudy breaking her survey stake, and she explained that she called the police and had them issue Rudy a criminal trespass warning. Kelly testified that another video showed Rudy getting one of his guests to enter her backyard and move her light. Kelly stated they were seeking nominal damages for the trespasses and injunctive relief to keep the Amadors off her property. Concerning the Amadors’ claim of an easement by estoppel, Kelly reiterated that she did not speak with the Amadors prior to their purchase of the Amador Property and believes she did not say or do anything that made the Amadors believe that they had an easement prior to the Amador’s purchase of the property. Kelly explained that after Rudy gave them the gate he installed on the Suitts Property, Kelly told Rudy the gate was getting in her way and she did not want to use it, and part of the Suitts’ trespass claim includes Rudy removing the gate from the Suitts Property during the night. Concerning drainage from the Amador Property, 17 Kelly testified that she had videos of water running onto her property from the Amadors’ driveaway or backyard, but she agreed none had been played during trial. Kelly testified that she never told Rudy he needed their written permission to cross the boundary line or to stop coming onto her property. Kelly stated that Rudy used to check in when he did projects, but then he stopped asking. Kelly agreed that the south side of the Amador Property was inaccessible for repairs and maintenance except for coming onto the five-foot setback area on the Suitts Property, and that had been the case since Charles Rosok (“Charles”) built the Amador’s home in 2004. Kelly explained that when the Rosoks lived next door, the Rosoks used the five-foot setback area to perform repairs and maintenance on their home with the Suitts’ permission. The Amadors had done the same and Rudy used to ask her permission when they chatted in the front yard, but that ended with the trespass warning. Kelly stated that they had put up a fence and no trespassing signs because of the Amadors’ actions. Kelly agreed that the Subdivision plat allows lots to have zero setback building lines on the side lot, and when she bought her home, she could see that the Rosoks had built their home close to the property line and that “it was tight.” After the Suitts rested their case, the Amadors moved for a directed verdict on all the Suitts’ claims. The Amadors argued there was no evidence or insufficient evidence of a violation of the Texas Water Code and that the complaints regarding 18 water diversion are a permanent trespass which are barred by limitations because the water diversion began in 2004 with the driveway renovation and extended into 2016, or 2017, with the pool addition. Concerning the Suitts’ declaratory judgment, the Amadors argued there was insufficient evidence to show the Amadors do not have the requested easements. The Amadors also maintained the Suitts’ claim to enforce deed restrictions has a four-year statute of limitations and is time barred because they are permanent in nature and began more than ten years ago. The Amadors argued that the Suitts’ trespass complaints are time-barred under the affirmative defense of statute of limitations because the “two-year statute for trespass has run anywhere from the years 2006 to the year 2019.” The Amadors argued there was no evidence of any trespass damage for water diversion and that the trespass claim concerning the gas meter, Generac panel, electric cable, gas lines, Internet, and cable services are permanent trespasses barred by limitations. The Amadors argued that there was no evidence or insufficient evidence to show that Rudy physically trespassed on the Suitts Property after he received an actual trespass notice or that any physical intrusion by a person on the Suitts Property was directed by Rudy within the statute of limitations. The trial court directed a verdict on the Suitts’ claims for diversion of surface water under the Texas Water Code, trespass by water diversion, violation of deed restrictions due to drainage, and the trespass claims regarding the “generator box, 19 the gas line, any of those structures that have been installed more than four years, because I do not find it’s a continuing tort.” The trial court found that those trespass claims were not continuing torts because they involved continuing injuries that stemmed from one wrongful act. The trial court found that the physical trespasses by the Amadors or their agents that occurred within two years of the Suitts filing suit were “fair game.” Concerning the diversion of water claims, the trial court found that there was no evidence that one drop of water on a particular date entered the Suitts Property or that the Amadors did anything to impede or misdirect the flow of water, or of damages. The trial court noted that the dates of installing the roof, gutters, and pool were beyond the two and four-year statute of limitations. The Amadors called Mike Stoecker (“Stoecker”) as a witness. Stoecker developed the Subdivision around 2000. Stoecker testified that the Notes on the plat state that all the lots have a zero-foot side and rear building line unless noted otherwise, meaning that you can build all the way up to the legal property line. Stoecker explained that the north sides of the Suitt and Amador Properties have a five-foot setback line, and the south side of the Amador Property has a zero-setback line that allows you to build up to that line. Stoecker assumed that buyers could rely on the representations in the plat when purchasing a lot in the Subdivision. Stoecker explained that for homes built on the zero-setback line, access for maintenance and repairs would be performed on the roof or on the five-foot setback line on the 20 adjoining property. Stoecker’s intended purpose for the five-foot setback line was for it to be used for major maintenance through the approval of the ACC or the HOA. Stocker testified that setbacks provide a “[s]eparation of homes for the purpose of the maintenance a lot of time.” Stoecker testified that the Suitt Property did not have an access, utility, or drainage easement. Stoecker had reserved easements for Entergy in the Restrictions, but he did not reserve any easements on behalf of the owners who built on the zero- setback line to go onto the adjoining lot to maintain their home. Stoecker testified that the Amador Property was originally sold to the Rosoks after the original sale of the Suitt Property and that there was no easement reserved in the deed to the Suitt Property for the maintenance of the Amador Property. Rudy testified that he bought the Amador Property from the Rosoks and met the Suitts a couple of months after he moved in. Rudy testified that he mowed the Suitts’ yard at times without asking, and they never told him to stop and thanked him for doing it. Concerning the five-foot setback area, Rudy testified that he had to access that area to maintain his home and that he had used that area to inspect, repair, and maintain his home from the time he bought his home in 2013 until he received the trespass warning in 2022. Rudy pulled the weeds in the setback area without asking the Suitts for permission, and the Suitts thanked him numerous times. 21 Rudy testified that when he moved in, the front downspout for the gutters on his home were already connected to the drain line that ran to the lake. Rudy explained that there was one downspout that was not connected to the drain line, and John gave him permission to connect it to the drain line. In 2015, Rudy and John installed a French drain in the setback area because the Suitts’ yard was holding water, but Rudy denied that water from his downspout was draining onto the Suitt Property. They also added more gravel to the setback area. Rudy testified that John gave him permission to connect the drain in his summer kitchen to the Suitts’ drain line, which John and Charles had installed together. Rudy explained that the Suitts never told him that his sprinkler head was tied into their sprinkler system, nor did they ask him to remove it, and when Rudy discovered it and asked the Suitts’ lawn man to cap it off, the man refused. Rudy installed the gate he gave to the Suitts with John’s permission, and when he came home from work wearing his police uniform, he would check the area and close the gate about every day for five or six years. Rudy removed the gate because the gate was always open. Rudy explained that during a get-together with neighbors, one of their neighbors entered the Suitts Property and adjusted the Suitts’ light that was facing the Amador Property because that neighbor stepped off the deck and fell into the fence because of the light. Rudy agreed that the video showed he opened the 22 gate for the neighbor to enter the Suitts Property and told the neighbor the adjusted direction of the light was okay but claimed he had nothing to do with the incident. Concerning the video showing Rudy entering the Suitt Property at night with his shirt covering his face, Rudy testified he was not trespassing and only went to move the light. Rudy also admitted that he commented that the Suitts do not have night vision cameras. Rudy agreed that he had entered the Suitts’ Property at night while wearing his police uniform, which law enforcement uses to project a position of authority. Rudy also agreed that a video showed him twice kicking over a survey stake on the Suitts Property, but he claimed it was an involuntary act because he was responding to an insect crawling up his leg. Rudy stated he first learned he was not welcome on the Suitts Property when a police officer gave him a trespass warning on October 12, 2022, the night he kicked over the stake. Rudy testified that he told the police officer that he was mad because the Suitts put the stake right next to his yard and he did not report that an insect had crawled up his leg. In deciding to purchase the Amador Property that was built on a zero-setback line, Rudy reviewed the plat and understood that he could use the five-foot setback area on the Suitts Property to maintain the south side of his home. Rudy explained that he walked in the setback area and around the Suitts’ home numerous times late in the evening when the Suitts were away to make sure things were secure and that the Suitts had thanked him for doing so. Rudy testified that the conversation he had 23 with the Rosoks about buying the Amador Property did not change his opinion about buying the home, and he was not concerned about the neighbors not allowing him to maintain the house because he did not think there was a problem. Rudy saw and relied on the plat prior to purchasing the Amador Property, which he knew had a zero-setback line, and he recognized that he did not have a means to maintain his home without entering the Suitts Property. Rudy stated that he relied on the plat and being able to use a five-foot setback area on the Suitts Property to maintain the south side of his home, and that nobody told him anything to the contrary. Rudy agreed there was nothing in writing or in his chain of title giving him the right to enter the Suitts Property. Rudy explained that he informed John about when contractors were coming as a courtesy. After receiving the trespass warning, Rudy did not go onto the Suitts Property, and he told his contractors not to as well. Rudy asked that the jury recognize a form of easement that would settle his dispute with the Suitts and allow him to use the five-foot setback area to repair and maintain his home. Rudy claimed that the utility easement in favor of Entergy and utility companies in the Restrictions entitles him to limited access and use of the five-foot setback area, but he agreed that the Suitts Property does not have a side lot utility easement and that Entergy’s easement began at the surface and ran underground two and a half feet beside their utility lines. Rudy agreed that the Restrictions did not 24 give him an easement for purposes of maintenance and repair and that nothing in the plat or deeds gives him the right to enter the Suitts Property. Concerning an easement by estoppel, Rudy admitted that the first time he spoke with the Suitts was two months after he moved onto the Amador Property. Rudy agreed that the Suitts did nothing that changed his course of dealing while purchasing the Amador Property. Rudy asked that the jury impose an easement on the five-foot setback area on the Suitts Property so he can maintain the south side of his home. Rudy agreed that it would have been prudent to have contacted