Texarkana, Texas – A local liquor store, alongside its lessor, has initiated legal action against a neighboring Whataburger franchise, claiming that newly installed barriers in a shared parking lot are jeopardizing their business by restricting customer access. The suit, addressing a dispute that has simmered over decades of property use, was lodged on October 3 in Miller County Circuit Court.
The plaintiffs, the Party Factory and the Oliver Family Trust, allege that the installation of six posts by Double H Burger Co., the franchise operator, in June 2024 severely disrupted their drive-thru service – a critical component of their sales revenue. Additionally, they contend that these barriers were positioned erroneously on their property, not on land owned by Whataburger.
Historically, the Party Factory’s customers utilized a driveway that cuts through the Whataburger property to access State Line Avenue, a setup that was unchallenged until recent developments. Documentation from the lawsuit highlights that this practice has been ongoing since 1984 and was briefly formalized through an easement agreement from 2003 to 2005. However, post-agreement, the liquor store continued to use the route without formal permission – a status quo that persisted for nearly two decades.
According to legal filings, this arrangement saw no objections until Double H Burger’s decision to erect the bollards without prior discussion, leading to assertions of significant business impact due to restricted customer flow. In July 2024, after realizing the bollards lay on their terrain, the Party Factory executed a survey and communicated the findings to Whataburger, requesting the removal of the obstructions.
The response from Whataburger’s legal representation on August 15 challenged the existence of any prescriptive easement rights for the Party Factory and declined the removal of the barriers. This stance has heightened tensions, prompting the plaintiffs to seek judicial intervention.
The lawsuit outlines several legal actions, including quieting the title and claims of unjust enrichment, where the plaintiffs argue they invested in maintenance of the driveway with reasonable expectations of access continuity. They seek compensation for purported trespass, property detention, and lost profits, both past and future.
The legal complaint also emphasizes the urgency of removing the bollards, pressing for a temporary restraining order to prevent further economic damages and erosion of customer goodwill.
Legal representatives Brent Langdon and Colton Langford, spearheading the case for the plaintiffs, argue that the business’s survival hinges on the court’s swift action to restore the drive-thru access. They highlight a scenario of immediate and irreparable harm if corrective measures are delayed.
As of the latest updates, the defendant had yet to formally respond to the lawsuit in court. The case thus promises to unfold further as both parties prepare for legal arguments that will determine the future of their adjacent properties and ongoing access rights. This dispute underscores the intricate nature of property rights and commercial access that often lurk beneath the surface in bustling commercial hubs.