conclusion that Wamco did not have constructive possession of the inventory. Mehan further contends that the evidence shows Wamco was a licensee with respect to the inventory, that Mehan revoked Wamco’s license to keep the inventory on the property on April 5, 2002, and that once the license was revoked and Wamco failed to remove the inventory within a reasonable time, it became a trespasser on Mehan’s real property. Mehan’s theory of trespass is based on the premise that Wamco interfered with Mehan’s right to use the real property by not exercising its discretionary rights as a secured creditor to repossess the inventory owned by Mehan subject to Wamco’s lien. See Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. §§ 9.601, 9.609; Cargal v. Cargal, 750 S.W.2d 382, 385 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1988, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Mehan cites no authority, nor have we found
holding that claimant could recover all of his attorneys fees because declaratoryjudgment claim in boundary dispute was based on the same facts as his claims for adverse possession trespass and trespass to try title holding that trespass requires only proof of interference with right of possession of real property holding that trespass to try title is the method for determining title to  real property holding that possession of a pistol in public requires knowing possession holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property