Notice to prospective buyers

1. What is on record

Texas Property Code § 13.002 provides: “An instrument that is properly recorded in the proper county is: (1) notice to all persons of the existence of the instrument; and (2) subject to inspection by the public.” The following instruments are recorded in Williamson County and are reproduced in full in the document library.

Warranty Deed, Carolville, Ltd. to Williamson County, October 30, 1990 (Vol. 1960, P. 440; Doc. No. 1990033694). The conveyance clause grants the land “provided, however, that the herein described property is conveyed exclusively for parks and recreational purposes for public use by the citizens of Williamson County.” The conditions clause states: “As a condition and by acceptance of this conveyance, Williamson County hereby dedicates the herein described property for park and recreational purposes for public use by the citizens of Williamson County, Texas, subject to the reservations, exceptions and restrictions set forth below.” The reservations that follow concern utility lines and roads. The deed’s reversion clause applied only if the Section 3 plat was not approved within one year; the plat was approved in February 1991. Read the deed

Park Land Acceptance, November 19, 1990 (Vol. 1960, P. 444). Signed by County Judge Don Wilson: “Williamson County … by its signature of its duly authorized representative hereto, does accept the grant of park land as hereinabove described, subject to all provisions and conditions contained herein.” Recorded November 20, 1990.

Commissioners Court minutes, November 19, 1990 (Vol. 46, p. 835), Agenda Item 17: “To accept the Warranty deed from Carrollville Ltd. and authorize it to be filed in the Deed Records in the County Clerk’s Office. Vote: Motion carried 4–1.”

Breakaway Park Section 3 Final Plat, February 1991 (Doc. No. 9105484; Cabinet J, Slides 377–379), approved by the City of Austin Planning Commission and by Williamson County. The plat labels the tract “7.38 AC PARK / WILLIAMSON COUNTY / VOL 1960 PG 440.” Note 15 states that the subdivision’s parkland requirements “were satisfied with the dedication of the approved and adjacent parkland tract as recorded in Volume 1960, Pages 440-444.” Note 16 states that “Williamson County, Texas is the owner of this approved parkland tract” and places maintenance responsibility on the subdivision. Read the plats

Breakaway Park Section 2A Plat (1994) and Section 1A Plat (1995), each approved by Williamson County, repeat the parkland dedication and the County’s ownership.

City of Austin subdivision case files C8-90-0040 and C8-90-0040.1A, released under the Public Information Act in June 2026, show that the City of Austin required the conveyance, County acceptance, and recording of the parkland tract as a condition of final plat approval, and contain Commissioner Mike Heiligenstein’s letter of January 11, 1991 to the City: “Williamson County has received and accepted a deed from Carolville, Ltd. for 7.38 acres of land … to be used as park land.” Read the Austin records

2. What the County’s own Development Agreement says

The Development Agreement between Williamson County and Skalmor, Inc., approved February 24, 2026 and amended September 3, 2026, is a public record. Read it. A prospective buyer of any lot created under it should note the following provisions.

• The third recital states that the property “was never formally accepted or designated as parkland by proper official action of the Williamson County Commissioners Court, and/or the County Property has never been used or maintained as a park or recreation area by the citizens of the County.” The recorded instruments in Section 1 bear directly on that statement.
• Article 1.2 provides that “as a specific prerequisite to the completion of a sale of any portion of the County Property,” the developer “shall cause Carolville to deliver … a duly executed Partial Release of Covenants, Restrictions and Conditions, in the form as set out in Exhibit ‘B.’”
• Exhibit B is a draft instrument by which Carolville and the County would declare that the deed’s park restrictions “are hereby fully released, abandoned, terminated, and forever discharged.” The deed’s dedication runs “for public use by the citizens of Williamson County.” Whether the grantor and the grantee can release a dedication made in favor of the public — and any rights that lot owners hold under the recorded plats — without the consent of those beneficiaries is a question no court has decided in this matter.
• Article 3.7 provides that “the obligations of Developer and County hereunder shall run with the land comprising the County Property and shall be binding on any successors and assigns.”
• The first recital cites the deed as recorded at “Vol. 1960 Page 449.” The deed is recorded at Page 440.
• Texas Secretary of State and Delaware records in the County’s file show that Carolville’s general partner is Silcar, L.L.C., whose manager, Henk Morelisse, is also the president of Skalmor, Inc. Corporate records

3. Rights of lot owners under a recorded plat

Texas courts have long held that when an owner records a plat and sells lots by reference to it, the purchasers acquire private rights in the areas shown on the plat, and that those rights do not depend on public acceptance. The Supreme Court of Texas restated the rule in Dykes v. City of Houston, 406 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. 1966):

“It is well settled that ‘if one owning land, exhibit a map of it, on which a street is defined, though not as yet opened, and building lots be sold by him, with reference to a front or rear on that street, this operates as an immediate dedication of the street; and the purchasers of lots have a right to have the street thrown open forever.’ Oswald v. Grenet, 22 Tex. 94, 100 (1858). ‘[T]he individual purchasers thereunder acquire an easement in the land designated as an alley or street, and such alley or street becomes charged with the servitude incident to such easement. Such purchasers have, by virtue of the easement thus acquired, the right to have such street or alley kept open, whether the public has or not accepted the dedication by some acts of user.’ Wolf v. Brass, 72 Tex. 133, 12 S.W. 159, 160 (1888).”

In City of Corsicana v. Zorn, 97 Tex. 317, 78 S.W. 924 (1904), the Court held that the sale of lots by reference to a recorded plat conveyed to each purchaser “a right to have all the streets and alleys represented upon the map or plat kept open for public use,” and that “there was no necessity for such acceptance, for the right which vested in the purchasers of the different lots and through them in the public was irrevocable.” Quoting Oswald v. Grenet, the Court described the rule in general terms: “the purchasers of the lots acquire, as appurtenant to their lots, every easement, privilege, and advantage, which the plan represents as belonging to them, as part of the town, or to their owners, as citizens of the town.”

The Texas Real Estate Research Center at Texas A&M summarizes the same principle in Easements in Texas (rev. 2013): the private rights of purchasers who bought “in reference to the recorded plat” are “separate and distinct from the rights of the county and the general public. Thus, the private rights to an easement cannot be prejudiced by any abandonment or refusal to accept the dedication on the part of the county.” The treatise Texas Jurisprudence 3d states the rule as extending to parks: “If a person owning land exhibits a map on which a street, park, alley, or other easement is clearly defined, the sale of building lots with reference to their location on the easement operates as an immediate dedication, and the place becomes charged with a servitude incident to the easement.” (30 Tex. Jur. 3d, Dedication § 29.)

The cases quoted above concern streets. The recorded Section 3 plat shows this tract as “7.38 AC PARK / WILLIAMSON COUNTY,” and the homes in Breakaway Park Sections 3, 2A and 1A are described in their deeds by lot and block of those plats. Whether these rules give the owners of those lots an enforceable interest in the parkland is a question of Texas law that no court has yet decided for this tract. They are the rules Texas courts have applied in comparable disputes, and they are the basis on which neighbors have given the County notice of their claims.

4. Dedicated parkland and the public interest

In Zachry v. City of San Antonio, 305 S.W.2d 558 (Tex. 1957), the Supreme Court of Texas stated: “It is the general rule that where land has once been dedicated to public use, such as for park purposes, no use inconsistent with its use as a park can be made of the property so long as the public is still using the land as a park.” The Court quoted its earlier decision in City of Tyler v. Smith County, 151 Tex. 80, 246 S.W.2d 601, 606 (1952), a case about a county’s attempt to sell its public square:

“Under these undisputed facts evidencing dedication and after more than a century of unquestioned general public use following and accepting such dedication, it cannot justly be said that Smith County can now convert the square to private use. Of course, the county may abandon the present square as a site for a courthouse and build a new courthouse wherever it chooses; but if it elects to do that, the entire square must remain impressed with the right of the public to use it for general public purposes; it cannot be diverted to private uses.”

Zachry also quotes the principle that property “actually dedicated to the public use of its inhabitants … is held by the municipality in trust for the use and benefit of its citizens … and the corporation cannot divest itself of title without special authority from the legislature. It is only when the public use has been abandoned, or the property has become unsuitable or inadequate for the purpose to which it was dedicated, that a power of disposition is recognized,” and holds that “to constitute an abandonment the use for which the property is dedicated must become impossible of execution or the object of the use wholly fail,” citing Adams v. Rowles, 149 Tex. 52, 228 S.W.2d 849, 852 (1950).

The Legislature’s process for abandoning a county park

Texas Local Government Code Chapter 317, “Abandonment of County Parks,” sets out the procedure by which a county may close a dedicated county park. Its text:

“Sec. 317.001. HEARING. On the application of any person, the commissioners court of a county shall hold a hearing to determine if land dedicated as a county park is undesirable for park purposes and if the park should be closed and abandoned. The commissioners court may conduct such a hearing on its own motion.”

“Sec. 317.002. NOTICE OF HEARING. (a) Notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper published in the county. The notice must be in English and must be published once a week for three consecutive weeks before the hearing, with the first publication appearing before the 21st day before the date of the hearing. … (c) The notice must: (1) contain a brief description of the land; (2) state that at the hearing the commissioners court will determine whether the park should be closed and abandoned; and (3) direct all interested persons desiring to protest the closing and abandonment to appear at the time and place of the hearing.”

“Sec. 317.003. ACTION AT HEARING. (a) At the hearing, the commissioners court shall: (1) hear evidence as to whether the land is desirable for park purposes; and (2) make a full investigation as to whether the public interest would be better served by the retention and maintenance of the land as a county park or by the closing and abandonment of the park. (b) After the hearing, the commissioners court shall enter in its minutes an order retaining the park or abandoning and closing the park, according to its determination as to the best public interest.”

“Sec. 317.004. EFFECT OF ABANDONMENT. (a) If the commissioners court orders that the park be closed and abandoned, the dedication of the land for that purpose expires, and the owner of the land holds fee simple title unencumbered by the dedication.”

The findings required before public parkland is used or taken

Texas Parks and Wildlife Code Chapter 26, “Protection of Public Parks and Recreational Lands,” provides:

“Sec. 26.001. PROTECTED LAND; NOTICE OF TAKING. (a) A department, agency, political subdivision, county, or municipality of this state may not approve any program or project that requires the use or taking of any public land designated and used prior to the arrangement of the program or project as a park, recreation area, scientific area, wildlife refuge, or historic site, unless the department, agency, political subdivision, county, or municipality, acting through its duly authorized governing body or officer, determines that: (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use or taking of such land; and (2) the program or project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the land, as a park, recreation area, scientific area, wildlife refuge, or historic site, resulting from the use or taking. (b) A finding required by Subsection (a) of this section may be made only after notice and a hearing as required by this chapter.”

Section 26.002 requires written notice to the entity that supervises the land at least 30 days before the hearing and published notice “once a week for three consecutive weeks.”

How a county sells real property

Texas Local Government Code § 263.001 provides that a sale of county real property “must be made at a public auction held in accordance with this section unless this chapter provides otherwise,” with notice published once a week for three consecutive weeks. Section 263.008 permits a commissioners court to “contract with a broker to sell or lease a tract of real property that is owned by the county,” and, if the contract requires the broker to list the tract with a multiple-listing service for at least 30 days, to sell “to a ready, willing, and able buyer … who submits the highest cash offer,” without a public auction. The Development Agreement, as amended on September 3, 2026, provides instead that “County and Developer shall mutually agree on final acceptance of any purchase offer” and that net proceeds be divided 55% to the developer and 45% to the County.

What the public record shows

As of September 18, 2026, the Commissioners Court agendas and minutes that neighbors have reviewed for 2018 through 2026, and the records the County produced under the Public Information Act, contain no notice, hearing, or order under Chapter 317 concerning this tract, and no notice, hearing, or finding under Chapter 26. The tract appeared as a closed-session item at thirteen consecutive meetings in 2018–2019 and at three meetings in June 2025; the minutes record no action taken. The February 24, 2026 agenda item that approved the Development Agreement described the subject as “certain property owned by the County,” as did the September 1, 2026 item that approved its First Amendment. Item 71 as the public saw it · September 1 minutes

The County’s stated position, in the Development Agreement, is that the tract was never accepted or designated as parkland by proper official action. Whether that position is correct — and therefore whether Chapters 317 and 26 govern this transaction — is the central disputed question. The recorded instruments bearing on it are set out in Section 1. No court has decided it.

If a Chapter 317 hearing were held, the statute would require the Commissioners Court to determine whether “the public interest would be better served by the retention and maintenance of the land as a county park or by the closing and abandonment of the park.” The County’s own Department of Infrastructure exhibit measures the tract at 7.4 acres, with 4 acres inside the 100-year floodplain (Atlas 14) and 1.2 acres of pond. The Development Agreement requires the tract to be entitled for “one or more” single-family residential lots “with septic (if necessary) and water well service.” The April 2026 letter to residents described three lots; the September 2026 listing offers the tract as a single 7.38-acre lot. The County’s floodplain exhibit

5. Title insurance

The Texas Department of Insurance’s promulgated Owner’s Policy of Title Insurance (Form T-1, effective November 1, 2024) states in Schedule B: “This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys’ fees or expenses) that arise by reason of … the following matters: 1. The following restrictive covenants of record itemized below …”. Matters listed in Schedule B are excluded from the policy’s coverage.

The commitment for title insurance that Williamson County obtained for this tract (Heritage Title Company of Austin / First American Title, GF No. 202501722, effective July 2, 2025) lists the following in Schedule B:

• Item 1, restrictive covenants of record: “Volume 1960, Page 440 of the Official Records of Williamson County, Texas.”
• Item 10(c): “All terms, conditions, stipulations and reservations as set out in that Deed dated October 30, 1990, recorded in Volume 1960, Page 440.”
• Item 10(e): “The maintenance responsibility of the parkland tract as recorded in Volume 1960, Page 440 … shall remain with the owner of Breakaway Park Section 3, Subdivision, or his/her assigns. Williamson County, Texas is the owner of this approved parkland tract, and is not responsible for any maintenance … as noted on the plat recorded in Cabinet J, Slide 377.”

A buyer who receives a commitment carrying these exceptions may wish to ask the title company, in writing, whether it will delete or insure over them, and on what basis. Read the commitment

6. Notice already given

• On April 26, 2026, neighbors sent the Williamson County Attorney a certified letter containing a notice of claim and a reliance and takings notice concerning the tract, enclosing the 1990 deed.
• In May 2026, through counsel, neighbors notified the General Counsel to the Commissioners Court in writing of their position that the deed and plats restrict the tract to park use.
• More than sixty residents of Breakaway Park and Silverado Ranch signed a petition opposing the sale in April and May 2026.
• On September 16, 2026, residents formed Breakaway Springs Park Alliance, a Texas unincorporated nonprofit association, whose stated purpose is “to preserve Breakaway Springs Park as publicly accessible open space; protect public and neighborhood access, trails, recreational use, and environmental and drainage functions; and oppose, through lawful advocacy, public participation, research, negotiation, administrative proceedings, and litigation when appropriate, any sale, conversion, or private residential development that conflicts with those goals.”
• This website, and the recorded instruments it reproduces, are public.

The Alliance and its members intend to assert the rights described above.

7. Questions a buyer’s counsel may wish to have answered

1. On what recorded instrument or official action does the County base its statement that the tract “was never formally accepted or designated as parkland,” given Vol. 1960, P. 444 and the November 19, 1990 minutes?
2. Has a hearing under Local Government Code Chapter 317 been noticed or held, and has an order under § 317.003(b) been entered in the minutes?
3. Have the findings required by Parks and Wildlife Code § 26.001 been made after notice and hearing?
4. By what authority does Carolville, Ltd. release a dedication made “for public use by the citizens of Williamson County,” and rights of lot owners under the recorded plats?
5. Will the title company delete Schedule B exceptions 1, 10(c) and 10(e), and if so on what basis?
6. How does the sale procedure in the Development Agreement satisfy Local Government Code §§ 263.001 or 263.008?
7. What portion of any lot lies within the 100-year floodplain shown on the County’s exhibit?

Sources

• Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 317; Chapter 263.
• Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 26.
• Texas Property Code, § 13.002.
• Dykes v. City of Houston, 406 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. 1966) — opinion.
• City of Corsicana v. Zorn, 97 Tex. 317, 78 S.W. 924 (1904) — opinion.
• Zachry v. City of San Antonio, 305 S.W.2d 558 (Tex. 1957) — opinion (quoting City of Tyler v. Smith County, 151 Tex. 80, 246 S.W.2d 601 (1952)).
• Adams v. Rowles, 149 Tex. 52, 228 S.W.2d 849 (1950) — opinion.
• Judon Fambrough, Easements in Texas, Texas Real Estate Research Center, Texas A&M University (rev. 2013) — PDF.
• Texas Department of Insurance, Owner’s Policy of Title Insurance, Form T-1 (eff. Nov. 1, 2024).
• Recorded instruments, County records, and the title commitment: document library.