Amanda Benner appeared before the Freestone County Commissioners Court requesting that the court grant access to a parcel she said is landlocked. The application included an affidavit and a request that the court declare a public road or otherwise provide access under the statute the court reviewed.

Court staff read language from the statute discussed during the meeting (recorded in the transcript as "section 251.053" or similar), explaining the procedural steps the court would need to follow: providing summons and notice to affected property owners, hearing evidence on the application, and, if the court finds the applicants lack access, issuing an order designating a public road with damages assessed as provided by law. Court staff also noted that a court order under that statutory process would not obligate the county to maintain the road.

Commissioners and staff cautioned Benner that the statute has a complex history and that prior versions had been subject to Texas Supreme Court scrutiny (the transcript summarized that prior versions were ruled unconstitutional in some earlier cases). Commissioners said that similar petitions had come before the court in the past and the court had not granted access in those cases.

Benner said she believed deeds in the chain of title showed prior unity of ownership and described historic use and physical access paths; she told the court she and her family are hunters who would use the property for access and that maps and deed transfers suggested an easement or prior unified tract. Commissioners and staff advised Benner that enforcing or litigating an implied easement or an easement by necessity is typically a civil matter for the district court. One commissioner stated the applicant would need to serve notice on affected property owners if she sought a statutory hearing in commissioners court.

At one point a commissioner summarized the court's likely position: "That is not something that we probably would do," and urged Benner to gather documentation and consider filing suit in district court. In the transcript the applicant asked whether she would need a denial from the commissioners court to take the matter to district court; an exchange in the record includes the line "The motion that we deny her necessity for easement." The transcript does not include a roll-call vote or a recorded finding in the excerpt; commissioners' comments indicate they expect the applicant to pursue evidence and possible litigation in civil court rather than immediate relief from the commissioners court.