Aero Valley Property Owners Association
Menu
Airport History & Legal FAQ
Edna Whyte Creates Aero Valley Airport
American aviation pioneer Edna Gardner Whyte founded Aero Valley Airport on 34.0 acres of land during 1969 and 1970. The airport served as her flight school until 1977. After acquiring a 47.5-acre tract that adjoins the airport's northern boundary, she formed Aero Valley Development Company ("AVDCO") with two others and transitioned the airport into a robust mixed-use common-interest community. The common interest is general aviation. Common grounds include the runway, parallel taxiway, ramp area and its associated buildings, and access areas.
AVDCO split the northeastern 47.5-acre tract into quarters. The western quarter allowed AVDCO to extend the runway to its present length of 3,500 feet. The eastern quarter consists of 18 lots restricted to residential use with a single detached private hangar. Whyte named this 12.6-acre tract Aero Valley Estates. AVDCO planned the two middle quarters to accommodate rows of T-hangars and box hangars of various sizes.
All purchasers of airport property acquired runway access via non-exclusive appurtenant easements subject to AVDCO's deed restrictions. AVDCO's restrictions require an Architectural Control Committee ("ACC") to govern the airport. It consists of seven members elected by the property owners every two years. In addition to the ACC's enumerated powers, the committee also has the broad power to make whatever rulings, or call for an election, deemed necessary to serve the best interests of the property owners. In 2019, the ACC permanently delegated its authority to the POA’s board of directors.
Whyte and AVDCO owned all property within airport boundaries except 8.63 acres adjacent to the runway's southwest side. In exchange for helping her develop the airport, Whyte granted easements for runway access and use of all airport facilities to the three purchasers of this acreage. Three acres became Southwest Development Phase 1, 1.85 acres became Southwest Development Phase 2, and the southernmost 3.784 acres was unnamed but is referred to as the Ted Fischer Addition.
Edna Whyte Retires
By 1980, Ms. Whyte had built her home and hangar in Aero Valley Estates and retired from daily airport management. She sold the airport's primary common areas to Gene Varner and financed his purchase with the expectation of using the payments to fund her retirement. She continued teaching students to fly until she lost her medical certificate a few years later.
Airport development proceeded harmoniously until 1983. Contrary to Varner's agreement with Whyte, Glen Hyde assumed Varner's deed and deed of trust to the airport's common areas in late 1982. This resulted in two agreements between Whyte and Hyde. Hyde violated the terms of the agreements less than a year later. 1012/826 & 1174/619.
Hyde Enters the Picture
Hyde first appeared in 1979. He and his wife, Candace, formed Hyde-Way, Inc. and began borrowing money to acquire airport property. Hyde first acquired 4.6 acres out of the eastern middle quarter of the 47.5-acre tract restricted for T-hangars. Hyde later acquired several more acres out of the 47.5-acre tract, including 2.02 acres where he lives in a double-wide trailer parked inside a hangar today. All of these tracts include easements for runway access and use of airport facilities. They are also subject to the AVDCO deed restrictions. Hyde sold many T-hangar tracts with these easements and restrictions intact and included in the deed.
On January 5, 1983, Hyde-Way, Inc. borrowed more money to acquire a 119.5-acre tract located west of Cleveland Gibbs Road on the northwest side of the airport. Hyde subdivided 56 acres out of this tract into four phases of approximately 14 acres each. He called this area the "Northwest Development, an addition to Aero Valley Airport."
Hyde copied the AVDCO restrictions and applied them to this acreage but with critical differences. To provide runway access, Hyde created a "runway and taxiway access" license. In exchange for paying an annual license fee, Hyde promised to keep the airport properly maintained. But he gave himself an out: He did not have to use any funds not collected from license fees to fulfill his maintenance promise. Collecting enough license fees was a practical impossibility because every other property owner already had an easement for runway access with a corresponding duty to pay maintenance fees to the ACC. Thus, Hyde's promise was empty. Three decades later, the runway and many taxiways were nearly unusable with no maintenance performed by Hyde.
Crisis and Conflict Begin
Whyte recognized that Hyde's attempt to grant runway access from the Northwest Development by any means exceeded the scope of the easements she and AVDCO had already granted. Neither Whyte nor her AVDCO partners ever intended to include this acreage within airport boundaries for at least three good reasons. First, development of all lots already within airport boundaries would maximize the runway's utility without overburdening it. Second, maintenance costs were already sufficiently distributed to keep the airport properly maintained while still affordable to most aircraft owners. Including this acreage would exceed the point of diminishing returns. The additional expense of providing utilities, the long taxiways required to get to the runway, and associated maintenance would create an unaffordable financial burden on property owners. Finally, forcing aircraft to cross a county road to get to the runway presented an unnecessary safety hazard.
Whyte also recognized that Hyde's claims contradicted the ACC's governing authority and the rights of the easement holders. Contrary to his belief that he owned the airport, Hyde's acquisition of airport common areas amounted to nothing more than a change in title to common areas burdened by hundreds of easements. After Whyte transitioned the airport to a common-interest community, the easement holders became the airport's owners and would remain its owners for as long as the land continued to be used as an airport. Recognizing the conflicts that inevitably arise between developer and property owners, common-interest community law requires developers to turn over common areas to the property owners' association. Doing so at Aero Valley would serve everyone's best interests, especially Mr. Hyde's.
Whyte Spends the Last Years of Her Life Trying to Protect the Airport
Unable to deal with Hyde, Whyte sued but a court never heard the case for the following reasons. Whyte had financed Varner's acquisition of airport common areas in 1980. Less than two years later, Hyde assumed both Varner's deed and deed of trust securing the debt. Overloaded with debt, in 1983 Hyde began defaulting on payments. Instead of making payments to Whyte as the deed of trust required, Hyde-Way, Inc. conveyed nine hangars out of Northwest Development Phase 1 to her. Without runway access, these hangars would have been all but worthless. To minimize her loss, Whyte had to agree to allow runway access from these NW1 hangars. Whyte had previously reserved the right to grant or assign easements from any property she owned or would ever own within airport boundaries. Thus, these nine hangars acquired an easement for runway access and use upon Whyte's acceptance of the deed. These nine hangars include: Hangar Tract 1, Lot 1; Hangar Tract 2, Lot 5; Hangar Tract 3, Lots 6, 8, and 14; Hangar Tract 4, Lots 6, 8, and 14; Hangar Tract 8, Lot 1. (1297/151).
Edna had to have bypass heart surgery in 1989 and could no longer hold a medical certificate. She passed away in February 1992 at age 89. Before she died, Whyte wrote an autobiography entitled “Rising Above It.” The last chapter discusses Aero Valley, a taxiway to her front door. Kelly Bryan, Edna's long-time friend and co-executor of her estate, dropped Whyte's lawsuits against Hyde and moved to Albuquerque, NM.
Hyde Defaults and the Banks Respond
Whyte was not the only one who did not get paid due to Hyde-Way, Inc.'s default. Hyde also defaulted on payments to numerous banks. To prevent a bank from foreclosing on airport common areas, Hyde conveyed the runway, ramp area, and several other tracts to a Nevada corporation called IR3T. Hyde was its only shareholder. Allied Bank of Dallas then sued Hyde for fraud and received a $1.68 million judgment. In 1987, Hyde and the bank entered into a settlement agreement wherein Hyde retained title to airport common areas in exchange for returning the tracts conveyed to IR3T back to Hyde-Way, Inc. Their agreement also required Hyde to grant easements for runway access and use from all lots Hyde-Way owned anywhere on the airport or any lots he later acquired. The settlement agreement affected NW1 lots as shown in the table below. As for the other three phases, the settlement affected all lots in Phases 3 and 4 (54 lots in each phase) and 46 of the 54 lots in Phase 2. The eight lots not affected are: 1-3, 2-1, 2-3, 8-1, 8-3, and Lots 1, 2, and 3 on the far northwest side of Phase 2 (adjacent to Phase 3).
The final paragraph of the settlement agreement grants runway access easements to "all other access ways or access easement areas now or hereafter owned by Hyde-Way, Inc. and located within said Northwest Development, and such other lots, tracts, parcels, access ways or access easement areas as may now or hereafter be owned by Hyde-Way, Inc. as part of or used in connection with the Aero Valley Airport." (2547/254, 259) In short, any property Hyde-Way owns or acquires at any time in the future anywhere within airport boundaries automatically acquires an easement for runway access and use. This would also apply to Hyde-Way's successors.
In May 1983, Hyde-Way, Inc. executed and recorded several deeds of trust to Lewisville National Bank for numerous hangar tracts both inside and outside the Northwest Development. Most of them include runway access easements except Hyde whited out the runway easement language for the T-hangars in Row 4 of NW1. See Vol. 723, page 665. The runway access easement for the Row 3 hangars is not whited out. The grant also includes non-exclusive easements over all the “A” lots in front of the main hangar tract. Row 3: 3-1, 1A; -3, 3A; -7, 7A; -9, 9A; -11, 11A; -13, 13A; -15; 15A. See Vol. 706, page 215. Row 4: 4-1, -3, -4, -5, -7, -9, -15, -16, -18, -20; “A” lots 1A, 3A, 5A, 7A, 9A, 11A, 13A, and 15A; 2A, 4A. 6A, 8A, 10A, 12A, 14A, 16A, 18A, and 20A).
Easement or License?
The addendum to Hyde's deed restrictions is titled "RUNWAY AND TAXIWAY LICENSE." Setting aside the question of whether Hyde had the authority to grant runway access by any means, let's determine whether the title is accurate. Is the addendum a license or an easement? Go to the Runway Access Easements page for a more thorough discussion. Here's the upshot: A document that grants irrevocable access to a runway for 99 years, is renewable for another 99 years, and is transferable to subsequent purchasers is not a license. Texas courts have no difficulty identifying such a document as an easement. For example, in Bobby Hawk's trial against Hyde, the court issued the following jury instruction: "This Court previously determined certain issues as a matter of law. For purposes of this trial, you are to consider the following matters as established for all purposes. ... 2. The 1995 Warranty Deed from Hyde and Hyde-Way to Williams establishes an easement for use of the runway and taxiway at Northwest Regional Airport." The only part of this deed referencing runway access is Hyde's Runway and Taxiway Access license addendum.
Hyde's False Beliefs Create a Non-stop Stream of Litigation
Hyde's belief that acquiring airport common areas granted him special powers led to nothing but crisis, conflict, confusion, trauma, litigation, uncertainty, more litigation, and an airport badly in need of repair and headed straight toward ruin.
When the legal issue was runway access, Hyde lost every time. He first tried to force Edna and her tenants to pay his license fee to access the runway from the open T-hangars just south of the ramp area and from the nine hangars Hyde had just conveyed to her in NW1. Result: The court held that these properties had an easement for runway access and the court enjoined Hyde from interfering.
Hyde then detained one of Edna's tenants, G.W. Hann, and had him arrested for trespass while Hann attempted to taxi back to a hangar he had rented from Edna. Result: Hann's trespass conviction overturned.
Hyde then blocked Richard and Dianne Blose's runway access to prevent them and their Star Aero students from accessing the runway. This land was formerly owned by Ted Fischer. Of course, Whyte had already granted a runway access easement to this acreage. Result: The court determined that Star Aero had an easement and enjoined Hyde from interfering.
In the late 1990s, Jimmy Ray had a female tenant who was learning to fly. Hyde threatened Jimmy’s tenant and scared her so badly that she couldn't get off the airport fast enough. Hyde did the same with Star Aero's students.
This same drama has taken place between Hyde and many others: Lincoln Financial, Carl Walchshauser, RGE Land, and Bobby Hawk. The result was the same: The courts determined that all these properties had easements to access the runway and enjoined Hyde from interfering. Hyde was then arrested and convicted of assault against John Davis, another airport property owner. These events are only examples of Hyde's behavior. The list goes on and on.
What explains this behavior? According to Hyde, § 9.41 of the Texas Penal Code applies to property owners and their tenants at Aero Valley Airport: "A person in lawful possession of land … is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property." In Hyde's eyes, if he claims you don't have runway access and you use it anyway, then you are a trespasser and he can use whatever force he deems necessary to terminate your trespass.
After listening to four days of testimony about Hyde's behavior, the jury in Bobby Hawk's trial had the rare opportunity of hearing one of the shortest closing statements in history. Bobby's lawyer, Andy Mead, stood up, pointed at Hyde, looked each jury member straight in the eyes, and asked them a simple question: "Would you do business with that man?" The jury returned a verdict in less than 30 minutes, ruling against Hyde on all issues and awarding Hawk over $300,000 in damages. Hyde's appeal was denied.
Tim Wade Rejuvenates the POA and a Solution Is Found
Four years before the Hawk trial, Tim Wade found himself faced with an unsafe and practically unusable runway, a nearly impassable north crossover, and severely deteriorated infrastructure. In addition, he was simply tired of Hyde's nonsense and constant conflict. Concerned for the airport's future, Tim formed a new board of directors and started looking for solutions. Ignorant of this history, attorney Mitch Whatley bought a hangar from Hyde-Way, Inc. in 2013. After doing some research, Mitch recognized a disconnect between what Hyde told him and what court and county records revealed. This research led to a plan to return airport governance to the property owners as the original Aero Valley deed restrictions and easements required. Mitch presented his plan to Tim and the POA's board and again at the POA's 2014 annual meeting. Property owners approved the plan unanimously.
Governance aside, the most pressing problem was the runway. It was so badly deteriorated that it was a safety hazard and on the verge of being unusable. Runway markings were either non-standard or non-existent. The board formed a runway construction committee and asked several companies to bid on replacing the runway. Hyde once again interfered. The POA then sought and the court granted an emergency injunction against Hyde. With a court order blocking Hyde's interference, the POA proceeded with drainage repairs and runway replacement. Lochner Engineering, teamed with construction contractor TexasBit, won the bid. After borrowing $675,000 from 20 property owners, board president Mitch Whatley signed the contract and work began. By September 2017, the new runway was completed on time and on budget.
The POA Prevails Temporarily, But Quickly Fills the Gap
On the legal front, the POA prevailed against Hyde on cross motions for summary judgment. The trial court held that the POA had successfully amended all prior deed restrictions and replaced them with Integrated Deed Restrictions (IDRs). As a result, the POA governed the entire airport and had the authority to assess and collect fees to perform its governing functions. Hyde appealed.
In December 2018, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals invalidated the Integrated Deed Restrictions (“IDRs”) on a technicality. Justice Meier disagreed with the trial court’s method of determining a majority. As a result of Justice Meier's opinion, airport properties returned to the deed restrictions validly applied to them before the IDRs were recorded. Two categories of restrictions were involved: those recorded by AVDCO and those recorded by Hyde-Way, Inc.
Because the original AVDCO restrictions were already compatible with all runway access easements and created the airport's governing body, there was no pressing need to amend the AVDCO restrictions. The problem was Hyde's runway and taxiway access license, which is part of and an addendum to Hyde’s restrictions. Hyde’s license was originally a creature of the Northwest Development. Although Hyde later attempted to impose his license on owners in other areas, all these lots already had runway access easements. Thus, all runway access licenses outside the Northwest Development are simply void.
Property Owners Respond
In 2019 the POA began the process of getting a majority of Northwest Development property owners to re-amend their restrictions to eliminate all references to a runway access license and declare the POA's board of directors the governing authority. The board simultaneously held an election to re-establish the ACC under the AVDCO restrictions. A newly elected ACC promptly delegated its authority permanently to the POA's board of directors. Thus, Hyde was once again in the same position he was in after the trial court ruled in the POA's favor. These documents are available from links on the home page.
But Hyde doesn't see it that way. Despite the re-amendment of the Northwest restrictions and despite the POA's delegated authority under the AVDCO restrictions, Hyde refuses to acknowledge either event. He claims that the POA has no authority. He then proceeded to eject contractors from access easements who were taking measurements to solve drainage problems and repair taxiways. He also injects himself into the sales of hangar properties, declaring that the property in question had no runway access. Hyde has chased away multiple potential buyers and prevented property owners from improving their own properties, demanding that property owners send their plans to Hyde for approval.
Back to Court We Go
Again faced with Hyde's interference and his refusal to cooperate, the POA had no choice but to seek judicial help. So here we go again. On December 7, 2020, the 16th District Court of Denton County granted the POA's motion for temporary injunction. The details of the court's order are posted in the Latest News section of this website. Trial is currently set for April 5 and 6, 2021.
Figure 1 at the top of this page shows all property formerly owned by Edna Whyte in yellow, all of which enjoys runway access via appurtenant easement. For properties shaded in orange, either Whyte or AVDCO granted runway access easements to them. Almost all Northwest Development lots acquired easements by one means or another. If Hyde's so-called "license" is really an easement, then all Northwest Development lots in phases 1 and 2 have runway access easements. No other conclusion eliminates the inherent and irreconcilable conflicts between an easement and a license.
For those who do not have a runway access easement in their deed or don’t know whether they do or not, please visit the Runway Access Easements page.
Finally, property owners should realize that nobody benefits more from the POA's efforts than Hyde. Trying to make sense out of his failure to cooperate and his active interference has proven futile.
At the 2015 annual meeting, the Board of Directors stated their objective as plainly as possible:
Return this airport—our airport—to a healthy, functional facility with the means to sustain itself and enjoy a prosperous future.
That objective remains the Board's sole objective today. We appreciate your support.
American aviation pioneer Edna Gardner Whyte founded Aero Valley Airport on 34.0 acres of land during 1969 and 1970. The airport served as her flight school until 1977. After acquiring a 47.5-acre tract that adjoins the airport's northern boundary, she formed Aero Valley Development Company ("AVDCO") with two others and transitioned the airport into a robust mixed-use common-interest community. The common interest is general aviation. Common grounds include the runway, parallel taxiway, ramp area and its associated buildings, and access areas.
AVDCO split the northeastern 47.5-acre tract into quarters. The western quarter allowed AVDCO to extend the runway to its present length of 3,500 feet. The eastern quarter consists of 18 lots restricted to residential use with a single detached private hangar. Whyte named this 12.6-acre tract Aero Valley Estates. AVDCO planned the two middle quarters to accommodate rows of T-hangars and box hangars of various sizes.
All purchasers of airport property acquired runway access via non-exclusive appurtenant easements subject to AVDCO's deed restrictions. AVDCO's restrictions require an Architectural Control Committee ("ACC") to govern the airport. It consists of seven members elected by the property owners every two years. In addition to the ACC's enumerated powers, the committee also has the broad power to make whatever rulings, or call for an election, deemed necessary to serve the best interests of the property owners. In 2019, the ACC permanently delegated its authority to the POA’s board of directors.
Whyte and AVDCO owned all property within airport boundaries except 8.63 acres adjacent to the runway's southwest side. In exchange for helping her develop the airport, Whyte granted easements for runway access and use of all airport facilities to the three purchasers of this acreage. Three acres became Southwest Development Phase 1, 1.85 acres became Southwest Development Phase 2, and the southernmost 3.784 acres was unnamed but is referred to as the Ted Fischer Addition.
Edna Whyte Retires
By 1980, Ms. Whyte had built her home and hangar in Aero Valley Estates and retired from daily airport management. She sold the airport's primary common areas to Gene Varner and financed his purchase with the expectation of using the payments to fund her retirement. She continued teaching students to fly until she lost her medical certificate a few years later.
Airport development proceeded harmoniously until 1983. Contrary to Varner's agreement with Whyte, Glen Hyde assumed Varner's deed and deed of trust to the airport's common areas in late 1982. This resulted in two agreements between Whyte and Hyde. Hyde violated the terms of the agreements less than a year later. 1012/826 & 1174/619.
Hyde Enters the Picture
Hyde first appeared in 1979. He and his wife, Candace, formed Hyde-Way, Inc. and began borrowing money to acquire airport property. Hyde first acquired 4.6 acres out of the eastern middle quarter of the 47.5-acre tract restricted for T-hangars. Hyde later acquired several more acres out of the 47.5-acre tract, including 2.02 acres where he lives in a double-wide trailer parked inside a hangar today. All of these tracts include easements for runway access and use of airport facilities. They are also subject to the AVDCO deed restrictions. Hyde sold many T-hangar tracts with these easements and restrictions intact and included in the deed.
On January 5, 1983, Hyde-Way, Inc. borrowed more money to acquire a 119.5-acre tract located west of Cleveland Gibbs Road on the northwest side of the airport. Hyde subdivided 56 acres out of this tract into four phases of approximately 14 acres each. He called this area the "Northwest Development, an addition to Aero Valley Airport."
Hyde copied the AVDCO restrictions and applied them to this acreage but with critical differences. To provide runway access, Hyde created a "runway and taxiway access" license. In exchange for paying an annual license fee, Hyde promised to keep the airport properly maintained. But he gave himself an out: He did not have to use any funds not collected from license fees to fulfill his maintenance promise. Collecting enough license fees was a practical impossibility because every other property owner already had an easement for runway access with a corresponding duty to pay maintenance fees to the ACC. Thus, Hyde's promise was empty. Three decades later, the runway and many taxiways were nearly unusable with no maintenance performed by Hyde.
Crisis and Conflict Begin
Whyte recognized that Hyde's attempt to grant runway access from the Northwest Development by any means exceeded the scope of the easements she and AVDCO had already granted. Neither Whyte nor her AVDCO partners ever intended to include this acreage within airport boundaries for at least three good reasons. First, development of all lots already within airport boundaries would maximize the runway's utility without overburdening it. Second, maintenance costs were already sufficiently distributed to keep the airport properly maintained while still affordable to most aircraft owners. Including this acreage would exceed the point of diminishing returns. The additional expense of providing utilities, the long taxiways required to get to the runway, and associated maintenance would create an unaffordable financial burden on property owners. Finally, forcing aircraft to cross a county road to get to the runway presented an unnecessary safety hazard.
Whyte also recognized that Hyde's claims contradicted the ACC's governing authority and the rights of the easement holders. Contrary to his belief that he owned the airport, Hyde's acquisition of airport common areas amounted to nothing more than a change in title to common areas burdened by hundreds of easements. After Whyte transitioned the airport to a common-interest community, the easement holders became the airport's owners and would remain its owners for as long as the land continued to be used as an airport. Recognizing the conflicts that inevitably arise between developer and property owners, common-interest community law requires developers to turn over common areas to the property owners' association. Doing so at Aero Valley would serve everyone's best interests, especially Mr. Hyde's.
Whyte Spends the Last Years of Her Life Trying to Protect the Airport
Unable to deal with Hyde, Whyte sued but a court never heard the case for the following reasons. Whyte had financed Varner's acquisition of airport common areas in 1980. Less than two years later, Hyde assumed both Varner's deed and deed of trust securing the debt. Overloaded with debt, in 1983 Hyde began defaulting on payments. Instead of making payments to Whyte as the deed of trust required, Hyde-Way, Inc. conveyed nine hangars out of Northwest Development Phase 1 to her. Without runway access, these hangars would have been all but worthless. To minimize her loss, Whyte had to agree to allow runway access from these NW1 hangars. Whyte had previously reserved the right to grant or assign easements from any property she owned or would ever own within airport boundaries. Thus, these nine hangars acquired an easement for runway access and use upon Whyte's acceptance of the deed. These nine hangars include: Hangar Tract 1, Lot 1; Hangar Tract 2, Lot 5; Hangar Tract 3, Lots 6, 8, and 14; Hangar Tract 4, Lots 6, 8, and 14; Hangar Tract 8, Lot 1. (1297/151).
Edna had to have bypass heart surgery in 1989 and could no longer hold a medical certificate. She passed away in February 1992 at age 89. Before she died, Whyte wrote an autobiography entitled “Rising Above It.” The last chapter discusses Aero Valley, a taxiway to her front door. Kelly Bryan, Edna's long-time friend and co-executor of her estate, dropped Whyte's lawsuits against Hyde and moved to Albuquerque, NM.
Hyde Defaults and the Banks Respond
Whyte was not the only one who did not get paid due to Hyde-Way, Inc.'s default. Hyde also defaulted on payments to numerous banks. To prevent a bank from foreclosing on airport common areas, Hyde conveyed the runway, ramp area, and several other tracts to a Nevada corporation called IR3T. Hyde was its only shareholder. Allied Bank of Dallas then sued Hyde for fraud and received a $1.68 million judgment. In 1987, Hyde and the bank entered into a settlement agreement wherein Hyde retained title to airport common areas in exchange for returning the tracts conveyed to IR3T back to Hyde-Way, Inc. Their agreement also required Hyde to grant easements for runway access and use from all lots Hyde-Way owned anywhere on the airport or any lots he later acquired. The settlement agreement affected NW1 lots as shown in the table below. As for the other three phases, the settlement affected all lots in Phases 3 and 4 (54 lots in each phase) and 46 of the 54 lots in Phase 2. The eight lots not affected are: 1-3, 2-1, 2-3, 8-1, 8-3, and Lots 1, 2, and 3 on the far northwest side of Phase 2 (adjacent to Phase 3).
The final paragraph of the settlement agreement grants runway access easements to "all other access ways or access easement areas now or hereafter owned by Hyde-Way, Inc. and located within said Northwest Development, and such other lots, tracts, parcels, access ways or access easement areas as may now or hereafter be owned by Hyde-Way, Inc. as part of or used in connection with the Aero Valley Airport." (2547/254, 259) In short, any property Hyde-Way owns or acquires at any time in the future anywhere within airport boundaries automatically acquires an easement for runway access and use. This would also apply to Hyde-Way's successors.
In May 1983, Hyde-Way, Inc. executed and recorded several deeds of trust to Lewisville National Bank for numerous hangar tracts both inside and outside the Northwest Development. Most of them include runway access easements except Hyde whited out the runway easement language for the T-hangars in Row 4 of NW1. See Vol. 723, page 665. The runway access easement for the Row 3 hangars is not whited out. The grant also includes non-exclusive easements over all the “A” lots in front of the main hangar tract. Row 3: 3-1, 1A; -3, 3A; -7, 7A; -9, 9A; -11, 11A; -13, 13A; -15; 15A. See Vol. 706, page 215. Row 4: 4-1, -3, -4, -5, -7, -9, -15, -16, -18, -20; “A” lots 1A, 3A, 5A, 7A, 9A, 11A, 13A, and 15A; 2A, 4A. 6A, 8A, 10A, 12A, 14A, 16A, 18A, and 20A).
Easement or License?
The addendum to Hyde's deed restrictions is titled "RUNWAY AND TAXIWAY LICENSE." Setting aside the question of whether Hyde had the authority to grant runway access by any means, let's determine whether the title is accurate. Is the addendum a license or an easement? Go to the Runway Access Easements page for a more thorough discussion. Here's the upshot: A document that grants irrevocable access to a runway for 99 years, is renewable for another 99 years, and is transferable to subsequent purchasers is not a license. Texas courts have no difficulty identifying such a document as an easement. For example, in Bobby Hawk's trial against Hyde, the court issued the following jury instruction: "This Court previously determined certain issues as a matter of law. For purposes of this trial, you are to consider the following matters as established for all purposes. ... 2. The 1995 Warranty Deed from Hyde and Hyde-Way to Williams establishes an easement for use of the runway and taxiway at Northwest Regional Airport." The only part of this deed referencing runway access is Hyde's Runway and Taxiway Access license addendum.
Hyde's False Beliefs Create a Non-stop Stream of Litigation
Hyde's belief that acquiring airport common areas granted him special powers led to nothing but crisis, conflict, confusion, trauma, litigation, uncertainty, more litigation, and an airport badly in need of repair and headed straight toward ruin.
When the legal issue was runway access, Hyde lost every time. He first tried to force Edna and her tenants to pay his license fee to access the runway from the open T-hangars just south of the ramp area and from the nine hangars Hyde had just conveyed to her in NW1. Result: The court held that these properties had an easement for runway access and the court enjoined Hyde from interfering.
Hyde then detained one of Edna's tenants, G.W. Hann, and had him arrested for trespass while Hann attempted to taxi back to a hangar he had rented from Edna. Result: Hann's trespass conviction overturned.
Hyde then blocked Richard and Dianne Blose's runway access to prevent them and their Star Aero students from accessing the runway. This land was formerly owned by Ted Fischer. Of course, Whyte had already granted a runway access easement to this acreage. Result: The court determined that Star Aero had an easement and enjoined Hyde from interfering.
In the late 1990s, Jimmy Ray had a female tenant who was learning to fly. Hyde threatened Jimmy’s tenant and scared her so badly that she couldn't get off the airport fast enough. Hyde did the same with Star Aero's students.
This same drama has taken place between Hyde and many others: Lincoln Financial, Carl Walchshauser, RGE Land, and Bobby Hawk. The result was the same: The courts determined that all these properties had easements to access the runway and enjoined Hyde from interfering. Hyde was then arrested and convicted of assault against John Davis, another airport property owner. These events are only examples of Hyde's behavior. The list goes on and on.
What explains this behavior? According to Hyde, § 9.41 of the Texas Penal Code applies to property owners and their tenants at Aero Valley Airport: "A person in lawful possession of land … is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property." In Hyde's eyes, if he claims you don't have runway access and you use it anyway, then you are a trespasser and he can use whatever force he deems necessary to terminate your trespass.
After listening to four days of testimony about Hyde's behavior, the jury in Bobby Hawk's trial had the rare opportunity of hearing one of the shortest closing statements in history. Bobby's lawyer, Andy Mead, stood up, pointed at Hyde, looked each jury member straight in the eyes, and asked them a simple question: "Would you do business with that man?" The jury returned a verdict in less than 30 minutes, ruling against Hyde on all issues and awarding Hawk over $300,000 in damages. Hyde's appeal was denied.
Tim Wade Rejuvenates the POA and a Solution Is Found
Four years before the Hawk trial, Tim Wade found himself faced with an unsafe and practically unusable runway, a nearly impassable north crossover, and severely deteriorated infrastructure. In addition, he was simply tired of Hyde's nonsense and constant conflict. Concerned for the airport's future, Tim formed a new board of directors and started looking for solutions. Ignorant of this history, attorney Mitch Whatley bought a hangar from Hyde-Way, Inc. in 2013. After doing some research, Mitch recognized a disconnect between what Hyde told him and what court and county records revealed. This research led to a plan to return airport governance to the property owners as the original Aero Valley deed restrictions and easements required. Mitch presented his plan to Tim and the POA's board and again at the POA's 2014 annual meeting. Property owners approved the plan unanimously.
Governance aside, the most pressing problem was the runway. It was so badly deteriorated that it was a safety hazard and on the verge of being unusable. Runway markings were either non-standard or non-existent. The board formed a runway construction committee and asked several companies to bid on replacing the runway. Hyde once again interfered. The POA then sought and the court granted an emergency injunction against Hyde. With a court order blocking Hyde's interference, the POA proceeded with drainage repairs and runway replacement. Lochner Engineering, teamed with construction contractor TexasBit, won the bid. After borrowing $675,000 from 20 property owners, board president Mitch Whatley signed the contract and work began. By September 2017, the new runway was completed on time and on budget.
The POA Prevails Temporarily, But Quickly Fills the Gap
On the legal front, the POA prevailed against Hyde on cross motions for summary judgment. The trial court held that the POA had successfully amended all prior deed restrictions and replaced them with Integrated Deed Restrictions (IDRs). As a result, the POA governed the entire airport and had the authority to assess and collect fees to perform its governing functions. Hyde appealed.
In December 2018, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals invalidated the Integrated Deed Restrictions (“IDRs”) on a technicality. Justice Meier disagreed with the trial court’s method of determining a majority. As a result of Justice Meier's opinion, airport properties returned to the deed restrictions validly applied to them before the IDRs were recorded. Two categories of restrictions were involved: those recorded by AVDCO and those recorded by Hyde-Way, Inc.
Because the original AVDCO restrictions were already compatible with all runway access easements and created the airport's governing body, there was no pressing need to amend the AVDCO restrictions. The problem was Hyde's runway and taxiway access license, which is part of and an addendum to Hyde’s restrictions. Hyde’s license was originally a creature of the Northwest Development. Although Hyde later attempted to impose his license on owners in other areas, all these lots already had runway access easements. Thus, all runway access licenses outside the Northwest Development are simply void.
Property Owners Respond
In 2019 the POA began the process of getting a majority of Northwest Development property owners to re-amend their restrictions to eliminate all references to a runway access license and declare the POA's board of directors the governing authority. The board simultaneously held an election to re-establish the ACC under the AVDCO restrictions. A newly elected ACC promptly delegated its authority permanently to the POA's board of directors. Thus, Hyde was once again in the same position he was in after the trial court ruled in the POA's favor. These documents are available from links on the home page.
But Hyde doesn't see it that way. Despite the re-amendment of the Northwest restrictions and despite the POA's delegated authority under the AVDCO restrictions, Hyde refuses to acknowledge either event. He claims that the POA has no authority. He then proceeded to eject contractors from access easements who were taking measurements to solve drainage problems and repair taxiways. He also injects himself into the sales of hangar properties, declaring that the property in question had no runway access. Hyde has chased away multiple potential buyers and prevented property owners from improving their own properties, demanding that property owners send their plans to Hyde for approval.
Back to Court We Go
Again faced with Hyde's interference and his refusal to cooperate, the POA had no choice but to seek judicial help. So here we go again. On December 7, 2020, the 16th District Court of Denton County granted the POA's motion for temporary injunction. The details of the court's order are posted in the Latest News section of this website. Trial is currently set for April 5 and 6, 2021.
Figure 1 at the top of this page shows all property formerly owned by Edna Whyte in yellow, all of which enjoys runway access via appurtenant easement. For properties shaded in orange, either Whyte or AVDCO granted runway access easements to them. Almost all Northwest Development lots acquired easements by one means or another. If Hyde's so-called "license" is really an easement, then all Northwest Development lots in phases 1 and 2 have runway access easements. No other conclusion eliminates the inherent and irreconcilable conflicts between an easement and a license.
For those who do not have a runway access easement in their deed or don’t know whether they do or not, please visit the Runway Access Easements page.
Finally, property owners should realize that nobody benefits more from the POA's efforts than Hyde. Trying to make sense out of his failure to cooperate and his active interference has proven futile.
At the 2015 annual meeting, the Board of Directors stated their objective as plainly as possible:
Return this airport—our airport—to a healthy, functional facility with the means to sustain itself and enjoy a prosperous future.
That objective remains the Board's sole objective today. We appreciate your support.
1. What did the Court of Appeals decide?
Answer: The Court invalidated the Integrated Deed Restrictions (“IDRs”) because Justice Meyer determined that a majority of property owners subject to each set of pre-existing deed restrictions did not, in fact, approve the IDRs.
This raises an obvious question: How did that happen? We knew that all license agreements Hyde attempted to impose on properties outside the Northwest Development were void because these properties already had easements for runway access and use. We also knew that Hyde’s restrictions on many of these same properties were also void because the property was already restricted under the original Aero Valley Development Company (“AVDCO”) deed restrictions. But rather than take the time and limited space in our pleadings to identify these properties one by one, we were convinced that we could accomplish the same goal by separating the restrictions into general groups and development areas. The trial court agreed, but the Fort Worth Court of Appeals disagreed. Fortunately, the POA and the property owners responded quickly and rendered the appellate court’s opinion moot by re-amending the NW restrictions and leaving the AVDCO restrictions alone.
This raises an obvious question: How did that happen? We knew that all license agreements Hyde attempted to impose on properties outside the Northwest Development were void because these properties already had easements for runway access and use. We also knew that Hyde’s restrictions on many of these same properties were also void because the property was already restricted under the original Aero Valley Development Company (“AVDCO”) deed restrictions. But rather than take the time and limited space in our pleadings to identify these properties one by one, we were convinced that we could accomplish the same goal by separating the restrictions into general groups and development areas. The trial court agreed, but the Fort Worth Court of Appeals disagreed. Fortunately, the POA and the property owners responded quickly and rendered the appellate court’s opinion moot by re-amending the NW restrictions and leaving the AVDCO restrictions alone.
2. How did the POA eliminate the effects of the Court’s opinion?
Answer: We eliminated the effects of the Court's opinion by taking the following actions:
(1) Northwest Development property owners amended their restrictions to (a) designate the POA’s board of directors as the governing body and (b) eliminate any reference to a runway access license;
(2) Property owners outside the Northwest Development elected the POA’s board of directors to serve as the governing body; and
(3) the POA consolidated all amendable AVDCO restrictions and amended Northwest Development restrictions into one document to clarify their scope and purpose for the convenience of all property owners.
The AVDCO restrictions apply to all property Whyte previously owned as shown in yellow in Figure 1. The AVDCO restrictions are compatible with the runway access and use easements and established the airport’s governing body. Thus, there was no need to amend them.
As for the Northwest Development, the Court agreed that this area was burdened by a single set of restrictions and that “over 50% of the owners subject to that set of deed restrictions approved the IDRs.” But because we did not get signatures on all the over 30 different sets of restrictions that Hyde applied to various tracts outside the Northwest Development, the Court invalidated the IDRs in their entirety. Over 60% of NW Development property owners re-amended these restrictions to establish the POA's board of directors as the governing authority and eliminate any reference to a license agreement.
(1) Northwest Development property owners amended their restrictions to (a) designate the POA’s board of directors as the governing body and (b) eliminate any reference to a runway access license;
(2) Property owners outside the Northwest Development elected the POA’s board of directors to serve as the governing body; and
(3) the POA consolidated all amendable AVDCO restrictions and amended Northwest Development restrictions into one document to clarify their scope and purpose for the convenience of all property owners.
The AVDCO restrictions apply to all property Whyte previously owned as shown in yellow in Figure 1. The AVDCO restrictions are compatible with the runway access and use easements and established the airport’s governing body. Thus, there was no need to amend them.
As for the Northwest Development, the Court agreed that this area was burdened by a single set of restrictions and that “over 50% of the owners subject to that set of deed restrictions approved the IDRs.” But because we did not get signatures on all the over 30 different sets of restrictions that Hyde applied to various tracts outside the Northwest Development, the Court invalidated the IDRs in their entirety. Over 60% of NW Development property owners re-amended these restrictions to establish the POA's board of directors as the governing authority and eliminate any reference to a license agreement.
3. Hyde says he won. Is that true?
Answer: Hyde ultimately won nothing. The Court’s invalidation of the IDRs amounted to a speed bump. Property owners promptly addressed that problem by re-amending the Northwest Development restrictions to designate the POA as the governing authority and eliminate any reference to the so-called “runway and taxiway access license.” Property owners then elected the POA’s board to serve as the ACC under the original AVDCO restrictions. Thus, the POA once again has the authority to assess and collect fees from ALL property owners for airport maintenance and operation.
We are now in the same position we were in after the trial court ruled in the POA’s favor. A better question is how much time and money Hyde has caused us to waste on legal fees and court costs that should have been spent to maintain and improve our airport. From that perspective, we all lost.
But what about the "cease and desist" letter Hyde showed me? Mr. Hyde’s lawyer sent our lawyer a letter demanding that the POA “cease and desist” from assessing fees and claiming governing authority. As Paul Harvey famously said, "And now for the rest of the story." Mr. Hyde apparently did not reveal to his attorney the actions property owners took after the appellate court published its opinion. Mr. Hyde also did not reveal to you the letter the POA's counsel sent to Mr. Henry in response to his letter. In that letter, Jeff Springer informed Mr. Henry that, because of the actions the POA had taken after the Court’s opinion, the POA had no intention of ceasing its activities. You can view both letters from these links: henry_to_springer_9.26.2019.pdf and springer_to_henry_9.30.2019.pdf.
We are now in the same position we were in after the trial court ruled in the POA’s favor. A better question is how much time and money Hyde has caused us to waste on legal fees and court costs that should have been spent to maintain and improve our airport. From that perspective, we all lost.
But what about the "cease and desist" letter Hyde showed me? Mr. Hyde’s lawyer sent our lawyer a letter demanding that the POA “cease and desist” from assessing fees and claiming governing authority. As Paul Harvey famously said, "And now for the rest of the story." Mr. Hyde apparently did not reveal to his attorney the actions property owners took after the appellate court published its opinion. Mr. Hyde also did not reveal to you the letter the POA's counsel sent to Mr. Henry in response to his letter. In that letter, Jeff Springer informed Mr. Henry that, because of the actions the POA had taken after the Court’s opinion, the POA had no intention of ceasing its activities. You can view both letters from these links: henry_to_springer_9.26.2019.pdf and springer_to_henry_9.30.2019.pdf.
4. Hyde says the Texas Supreme Court ruled in his favor. Is that true?
Answer: No. The Supreme Court declined to hear our case. Whether the Texas Supreme Court hears a case is discretionary. In our situation, we rendered the appellate court’s decision moot, leaving nothing for the Supreme Court to decide.
5. what about Hyde’s license?
Answer: It's gone and never should have existed. The general problem with most Hyde restrictions was the runway and taxiway license addendum rather than the restrictions themselves. Hyde never had the authority to grant runway access via license or easement. Why? Because the runway-east taxiway and ramp area are easements. Nobody has the right to increase the burden on an easement beyond what was contemplated by the original parties without the consent of the existing easement holders. The original grantors of these easements were Edna Whyte, John Everett, Michael O’Brien, and Gene Varner. Only the properties shown in Figure 1 above were contemplated to be included within airport boundaries. Ironically, Hyde was one of the grantees of these easements.
Hyde was the third owner of the runway-east taxiway and ramp area tracts. As noted above, Whyte, AVDCO, and Gene Varner had already established the scope of the easements burdening those tracts. Owners of property in Northwest Development Phases 1 and 2 acquired easements for runway access and use by either one of two means: (1) Texas courts hold that Hyde’s license is an easement and property owners in other development areas did not object to including these Northwest Development properties within airport boundaries except Edna Whyte. (2) Hyde had to grant easements to all properties he lost to First Interstate Bank after a Dallas district court held him liable for fraud and awarded a $1.68 million judgment against him.
Eliminating even the pretense of a runway access license was always our goal. According to the Court, “Appropriately construed, the deed restrictions are amendable by a majority of the then record property owners who are subject to each set of preexisting deed restrictions.” Even though a majority in the Northwest Development had adopted the IDRs, the court’s invalidation of them required Northwest Development owners to amend their restrictions again to eliminate the license agreement independently from other development areas. Property owners did not hesitate. Over 60% of Northwest Development property owners signed the amended restrictions. We recorded these amended restrictions on June 3, 2019 at document number 63922. This document is also on the Governing Documents link on the home page.
Hyde was the third owner of the runway-east taxiway and ramp area tracts. As noted above, Whyte, AVDCO, and Gene Varner had already established the scope of the easements burdening those tracts. Owners of property in Northwest Development Phases 1 and 2 acquired easements for runway access and use by either one of two means: (1) Texas courts hold that Hyde’s license is an easement and property owners in other development areas did not object to including these Northwest Development properties within airport boundaries except Edna Whyte. (2) Hyde had to grant easements to all properties he lost to First Interstate Bank after a Dallas district court held him liable for fraud and awarded a $1.68 million judgment against him.
Eliminating even the pretense of a runway access license was always our goal. According to the Court, “Appropriately construed, the deed restrictions are amendable by a majority of the then record property owners who are subject to each set of preexisting deed restrictions.” Even though a majority in the Northwest Development had adopted the IDRs, the court’s invalidation of them required Northwest Development owners to amend their restrictions again to eliminate the license agreement independently from other development areas. Property owners did not hesitate. Over 60% of Northwest Development property owners signed the amended restrictions. We recorded these amended restrictions on June 3, 2019 at document number 63922. This document is also on the Governing Documents link on the home page.
6. Hyde claims his restrictions can’t be amended for 99 years. Is that true?
Answer: No. By stating “the deed restrictions are amendable by a majority” and the Court’s acknowledgment that over 50% of those in the Northwest Development had approved the IDRs, the Court necessarily rejected the argument that the restrictions could not be amended for 99 years. If the Court would have found that argument persuasive, the opinion would have stated, “Appropriately construed, the deed restrictions cannot be amended for 99 years”; thus, eliminating any need to determine whether a majority amended them.
Furthermore, as stated in a footnote in the recitals to the consolidated AVDCO deed restrictions, Texas courts interpret the language in the duration and amendment section to mean the restrictions can be amended at any time. Because of the historical preference to limit the duration of land use restrictions, the 30-year initial term originally identified the period before the restrictions expired. Property owners had to take affirmative action to amend or extend them. This led to restrictions expiring when property owners had no desire to lose them. To avoid automatic termination, the 30-year term in this case (and many others) merely marks the beginning of 10-year automatic extensions. The initial term—whether 30 years or 99 years or any other number of years—is unrelated to amendment.
Furthermore, as stated in a footnote in the recitals to the consolidated AVDCO deed restrictions, Texas courts interpret the language in the duration and amendment section to mean the restrictions can be amended at any time. Because of the historical preference to limit the duration of land use restrictions, the 30-year initial term originally identified the period before the restrictions expired. Property owners had to take affirmative action to amend or extend them. This led to restrictions expiring when property owners had no desire to lose them. To avoid automatic termination, the 30-year term in this case (and many others) merely marks the beginning of 10-year automatic extensions. The initial term—whether 30 years or 99 years or any other number of years—is unrelated to amendment.
7. Hyde claims he governs the airport. Is that true?
Answer: No, you do. If you’re a property owner, the AVDCO restrictions require seven property owners elected by their peers to govern the airport. No property owner has any more governing authority than any other. Which property you own or the amount of property you own is irrelevant to governance. You elected the POA’s board of directors to represent you. Thus, the POA’s board of directors governs the airport.
In 1977, Edna Whyte and Aero Valley Development Company established airport governance in an Architectural Control Committee (“ACC”). After the appellate court published its opinion, property owners responded immediately to neutralize its consequences. First, Northwest Development property owners amended their deed restrictions to designate the POA’s board of directors as the governing authority in that area. Second, in an uncontested election, property owners outside the Northwest Development filled all seven seats on the ACC with the POA’s current board of directors. The ACC then delegated its governing authority to the POA’s board of directors. The result? All properties within airport boundaries are currently governed by the POA’s board of directors.
In 1977, Edna Whyte and Aero Valley Development Company established airport governance in an Architectural Control Committee (“ACC”). After the appellate court published its opinion, property owners responded immediately to neutralize its consequences. First, Northwest Development property owners amended their deed restrictions to designate the POA’s board of directors as the governing authority in that area. Second, in an uncontested election, property owners outside the Northwest Development filled all seven seats on the ACC with the POA’s current board of directors. The ACC then delegated its governing authority to the POA’s board of directors. The result? All properties within airport boundaries are currently governed by the POA’s board of directors.
8. Hyde claims he owns the airport. Is that true?
Answer: No. This question turns on the definition of an airport, specifically “airport property.” According to the Texas Tax Code, "Airport property is real property designed to be used or is used for airport purposes, including the landing, parking, shelter, or takeoff of aircraft and the accommodation of individuals engaged in the operation, maintenance, or navigation of aircraft or of aircraft passengers in connection with their use of aircraft or airport property." - Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 23.91(1).
The FAA defines airport property as "An area of land or water which is used, or intended to be used, for the aircraft takeoff and landing. It includes any appurtenant areas used, or intended to be used, for airport buildings or other airport facilities or rights-of-way, together with all airport buildings and facilities located thereon." - FAA Doc 5190.6B, Appendix Z.
In the case of an airport like Aero Valley, the easement holders are considered the owners of the airport. Texas courts agree. See Noell v. City of Carrollton, 431 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014).
With these definitions in mind, Hyde owns the airport just like you do. If you own property within airport boundaries, you share airport ownership with your fellow property owners. Ownership and governance are two different propositions. You must own airport property before you can participate in airport governance. The airport’s governing body was established long before Mr. Hyde arrived. Like any other property owner, he can participate in airport governance, but he has no authority to dictate airport governance.
The FAA defines airport property as "An area of land or water which is used, or intended to be used, for the aircraft takeoff and landing. It includes any appurtenant areas used, or intended to be used, for airport buildings or other airport facilities or rights-of-way, together with all airport buildings and facilities located thereon." - FAA Doc 5190.6B, Appendix Z.
In the case of an airport like Aero Valley, the easement holders are considered the owners of the airport. Texas courts agree. See Noell v. City of Carrollton, 431 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014).
With these definitions in mind, Hyde owns the airport just like you do. If you own property within airport boundaries, you share airport ownership with your fellow property owners. Ownership and governance are two different propositions. You must own airport property before you can participate in airport governance. The airport’s governing body was established long before Mr. Hyde arrived. Like any other property owner, he can participate in airport governance, but he has no authority to dictate airport governance.
9. But doesn’t ownership of the runway carry special rights?
Answer: This question is based on the false assumption that Hyde, in fact, owns the runway. Hyde does not own the runway any more than you do. He owns the dirt on which the runway sits. To grasp this situation, imagine the runway as a pipeline. If you had a natural gas pipeline running through your property, would you think you owned the pipeline itself? Would you try to sell a license to someone so they could also use the pipeline? Of course not. It's not your easement and not your pipeline. When viewed from this perspective, the whole idea of selling a runway access license is absurd.
Here’s a better question: When someone acquires the land on which a runway easement sits, what exactly do they acquire? Only the rights of shared use as a runway and shared expense to operate and maintain it. The rights and duties associated with property ownership can be viewed as a bundle of sticks. Unencumbered fee simple title provides the property owner with all possible sticks. The rights of sole possession and use for any legal purpose are among these sticks. But the number of sticks decreases as the number and kind of encumbrances increases. In our case, encumbrances take the form of easements and deed restrictions. Let’s cover easements first.
Easements: Hold on. This gets a bit technical. Tracts of land benefited by an easement are called dominant estates. All hangar owners benefit from non-exclusive easements that allow them vehicular access to their hangars and for runway access and use of an aircraft from their hangars. (“Non-exclusive” just means that more than one property owner has the right to the same easement.) Hangar owners are thus the dominant estates because their property benefits from these easements.
Tracts of land burdened by an easement are called servient estates. The runway-east taxiway and ramp area tracts are servient estates because they are burdened by easements. These tracts have been servient estates ever since Edna Whyte granted the first easement for runway access and use to Bob Cole in 1977.
Shortly thereafter, in 1978, Whyte and her partners platted the runway as an easement. By doing so, they ensured that the right to access the runway, if granted at all, would have to be by easement. But even that right is conditioned on the consent of the easement holders. Why? Because the burden on an easement cannot be increased beyond the use contemplated at the time the easement was granted. Whyte and her AVDCO partners had defined the scope of all easements by 1980. Thus, any further burden on the runway would require the consent of the easement holders.
Edna Whyte conveyed the servient estates to Gene Varner in 1980. In this deed, she reserved a strip of land along the runway’s east side (now the Southeast Development) and an easement in the runway-east taxiway and ramp area tracts. Whyte’s easement attached to all property she retained. During his brief ownership, Gene Varner granted two easements for runway access and use. The first to John and Carolyn Brown (Triangle Aviation) and the second to Hyde-Way, Inc. These easements attach to the hangar tracts just south of the open T-hangars on the west side of the runway and just north of Southwest Development Phase 2 (formerly owned by Lee Waldrop). Varner had the right to grant these easements because both tracts were part of Whyte’s 9.784-acre tract, which was the second tract she acquired when she first established the airport in 1969-1970.
From that point forward, individual ownership of the runway-taxiway and ramp area tracts became irrelevant. The runway-east taxiway and ramp area tracts would forever be servient estates burdened by these easements.
So, what would someone acquire if they acquired the tract of land on which the runway sits? Nothing but a servient estate burdened by easements and deed restrictions. The rights of sole possession and use were long gone. The bundle of sticks associated with runway ownership had been reduced to shared use and shared expense. That’s it. No amount of grandstanding, bullying, or grandiose illusions can change these facts. Now let's turn to deed restrictions.
Deed Restrictions: In 1977, Whyte and her AVDCO partners executed deed restrictions "to carry out a general plan for the protection, use, and convenience of all property owners." Their general plan included three types of structures: residential homes with single private hangars, box hangars of various sizes, and T-hangars. The restrictions appropriate for each type of structure were contained in three different documents. To grasp the full scope and purpose of the AVDCO restrictions required reading these three documents together. And although the AVDCO partners executed the restrictions on box hangars and T-hangars on the same day, the restrictions were recorded along with the deeds as various tracts were sold. We have since consolidated all the AVDCO restrictions into one document without amendment for convenience.
These restrictions apply to all property Whyte owned regardless of whether the deed includes them. This makes sense because one of the ACC's primary duties was to protect the rights and enforce the duties associated with all runway access and use easements, which all these properties have. See Figure 1 at the top of this Q&A to see the properties in yellow shading benefited by these easements and restrictions.
You can access this signed, notarized, and recorded consolidated AVDCO restrictions at document number 2019-136773 in the real property records of Denton County, Texas. The same document appears as a button link on the home page.
Hyde had actual and constructive (legal) notice of these restrictions. The first tract of airport property he acquired was the north five rows of planned T-hangars in the Northeast area. The restrictions benefiting this 4.537-acre tract (part of an 8.598-acre tract) and the deed from AVDCO were recorded consecutively on February 20, 1980. Like other AVDCO deeds, this one includes a non-exclusive easement for access and use of the runway and all other airport facilities. The recitals in the consolidated AVDCO restrictions include footnotes to the volume and page numbers of these recorded documents. Hyde initially included AVDCO's restrictions and easements in the first tracts he sold. But after he acquired the runway-taxiway-ramp area easement tracts in late 1982, he attempted to apply his own restrictions and runway access license addendum to these already restricted properties. These same properties also already benefited from runway access and use easements. With no attempt to amend the already existing AVDCO restrictions, Hyde's restrictions and license addendum were and remain void.
Here’s a better question: When someone acquires the land on which a runway easement sits, what exactly do they acquire? Only the rights of shared use as a runway and shared expense to operate and maintain it. The rights and duties associated with property ownership can be viewed as a bundle of sticks. Unencumbered fee simple title provides the property owner with all possible sticks. The rights of sole possession and use for any legal purpose are among these sticks. But the number of sticks decreases as the number and kind of encumbrances increases. In our case, encumbrances take the form of easements and deed restrictions. Let’s cover easements first.
Easements: Hold on. This gets a bit technical. Tracts of land benefited by an easement are called dominant estates. All hangar owners benefit from non-exclusive easements that allow them vehicular access to their hangars and for runway access and use of an aircraft from their hangars. (“Non-exclusive” just means that more than one property owner has the right to the same easement.) Hangar owners are thus the dominant estates because their property benefits from these easements.
Tracts of land burdened by an easement are called servient estates. The runway-east taxiway and ramp area tracts are servient estates because they are burdened by easements. These tracts have been servient estates ever since Edna Whyte granted the first easement for runway access and use to Bob Cole in 1977.
Shortly thereafter, in 1978, Whyte and her partners platted the runway as an easement. By doing so, they ensured that the right to access the runway, if granted at all, would have to be by easement. But even that right is conditioned on the consent of the easement holders. Why? Because the burden on an easement cannot be increased beyond the use contemplated at the time the easement was granted. Whyte and her AVDCO partners had defined the scope of all easements by 1980. Thus, any further burden on the runway would require the consent of the easement holders.
Edna Whyte conveyed the servient estates to Gene Varner in 1980. In this deed, she reserved a strip of land along the runway’s east side (now the Southeast Development) and an easement in the runway-east taxiway and ramp area tracts. Whyte’s easement attached to all property she retained. During his brief ownership, Gene Varner granted two easements for runway access and use. The first to John and Carolyn Brown (Triangle Aviation) and the second to Hyde-Way, Inc. These easements attach to the hangar tracts just south of the open T-hangars on the west side of the runway and just north of Southwest Development Phase 2 (formerly owned by Lee Waldrop). Varner had the right to grant these easements because both tracts were part of Whyte’s 9.784-acre tract, which was the second tract she acquired when she first established the airport in 1969-1970.
From that point forward, individual ownership of the runway-taxiway and ramp area tracts became irrelevant. The runway-east taxiway and ramp area tracts would forever be servient estates burdened by these easements.
So, what would someone acquire if they acquired the tract of land on which the runway sits? Nothing but a servient estate burdened by easements and deed restrictions. The rights of sole possession and use were long gone. The bundle of sticks associated with runway ownership had been reduced to shared use and shared expense. That’s it. No amount of grandstanding, bullying, or grandiose illusions can change these facts. Now let's turn to deed restrictions.
Deed Restrictions: In 1977, Whyte and her AVDCO partners executed deed restrictions "to carry out a general plan for the protection, use, and convenience of all property owners." Their general plan included three types of structures: residential homes with single private hangars, box hangars of various sizes, and T-hangars. The restrictions appropriate for each type of structure were contained in three different documents. To grasp the full scope and purpose of the AVDCO restrictions required reading these three documents together. And although the AVDCO partners executed the restrictions on box hangars and T-hangars on the same day, the restrictions were recorded along with the deeds as various tracts were sold. We have since consolidated all the AVDCO restrictions into one document without amendment for convenience.
These restrictions apply to all property Whyte owned regardless of whether the deed includes them. This makes sense because one of the ACC's primary duties was to protect the rights and enforce the duties associated with all runway access and use easements, which all these properties have. See Figure 1 at the top of this Q&A to see the properties in yellow shading benefited by these easements and restrictions.
You can access this signed, notarized, and recorded consolidated AVDCO restrictions at document number 2019-136773 in the real property records of Denton County, Texas. The same document appears as a button link on the home page.
Hyde had actual and constructive (legal) notice of these restrictions. The first tract of airport property he acquired was the north five rows of planned T-hangars in the Northeast area. The restrictions benefiting this 4.537-acre tract (part of an 8.598-acre tract) and the deed from AVDCO were recorded consecutively on February 20, 1980. Like other AVDCO deeds, this one includes a non-exclusive easement for access and use of the runway and all other airport facilities. The recitals in the consolidated AVDCO restrictions include footnotes to the volume and page numbers of these recorded documents. Hyde initially included AVDCO's restrictions and easements in the first tracts he sold. But after he acquired the runway-taxiway-ramp area easement tracts in late 1982, he attempted to apply his own restrictions and runway access license addendum to these already restricted properties. These same properties also already benefited from runway access and use easements. With no attempt to amend the already existing AVDCO restrictions, Hyde's restrictions and license addendum were and remain void.
10. What about airport operation and maintenance?
Answer: Along with the right of use associated with easement ownership comes the duty to maintain those easements and liability for any injuries sustained due to a failure to maintain them. The owner of the servient estates—i.e., the runway-east taxiway and ramp area tracts—has only one duty: not to interfere with the rights and duties of the dominant estates, i.e., the hangar owners. If the owner of the servient estates (Hyde, in this case) shares in their use, however, he is liable for his share of their operation and maintenance costs. Texas courts agree. See Clearpoint Crossing Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Chambers, 569 S.W.3d 195, 204-05 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2019).
Our airport is what is known as a common-interest community. Its central and most important common property is the runway. In a common-interest community, the duty to maintain common areas exists regardless of use. And if you gain access to your hangar via any of these private easements, failure to pay your share of maintenance costs can result in denial of access. In short, whether you use the runway is irrelevant. If you don’t want to pay airport operation and maintenance costs, don’t buy property in a common-interest community like Aero Valley. The fundamental fairness of these rules should be obvious.
Our airport is what is known as a common-interest community. Its central and most important common property is the runway. In a common-interest community, the duty to maintain common areas exists regardless of use. And if you gain access to your hangar via any of these private easements, failure to pay your share of maintenance costs can result in denial of access. In short, whether you use the runway is irrelevant. If you don’t want to pay airport operation and maintenance costs, don’t buy property in a common-interest community like Aero Valley. The fundamental fairness of these rules should be obvious.