Case Title: American Transmission Co. v. Garza

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2014AP002279, 2014AP002278

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2017-04-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
2017 WI 35 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2014AP2278 and 2014AP2279 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
In re:  Acquisition of Property of Ricardo M. 
Garza and Julie L. Garza: 
 
Ricardo M. Garza and Julie L. Garza, 
     Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
v. 
 
American Transmission Company LLC and ATC 
Management, Inc., 
     Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners. 
__________________________________________________ 
American Transmission Company LLC and ATC 
Management, Inc., 
     Plaintiffs-Respondents-Petitioners, 
 
v. 
 
Ricardo Garza and Julie Garza, 
     Defendants-Appellants. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at: 366 Wis. 2d 330, 873 N.W.2d 99 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
April 13, 2017 
SUBMITTED ON 
BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
November 1, 2016 
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 COURT: 
Circuit 
 COUNTY: 
Waupaca 
 JUDGE: 
Mark J. McGinnis 
  
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 CONCURRED: 
      
 DISSENTED: 
      
 NOT 
PARTICIPATING: 
         
  
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For 
the 
defendants-respondents-petitioners, 
there 
were  
briefs by Bryan J. Cahill, Katherine Stadler and Godfrey & Kahn, 
S. C., Madison, and oral argument by Bryan J. Cahill. 
 
 
2 
For the plaintiff-appellant, there was a brief by Frank J. 
Jablonski and Progressive Law Group, LLC, Madison, and oral 
argument by Frank Jablonski. 
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Cori Moore Lamont, 
Madison for The Wisconsin Realtors® Association.  
 
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Bradley D. Jackson, 
James E. Goldschmidt and Quarles & Brady, LLP, Madison for 
Wisconsin Utilities Association.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
2017 WI 35
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
Nos.   2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279 
(L.C. Nos. 2011CV467 & 2011CV478) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
In re:  Acquisition of Property of Ricardo M. 
Garza and Julie L. Garza: 
 
Ricardo M. Garza and Julie L. Garza, 
          Plaintiffs-Appellants, 
 
     v. 
 
American Transmission Company LLC and ATC 
Management, Inc., 
          Defendants-Respondents-Petitioners. 
 
 
FILED 
 
Apr 13, 2017 
 
Diane M. Fremgen 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
American Transmission Company LLC and ATC 
Management, Inc., 
          Plaintiffs-Respondents-Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Ricardo Garza and Julie Garza, 
          Defendants-Appellants. 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed.   
 
¶1 
MICHAEL J. GABLEMAN, J.   This is a review of an 
unpublished per curiam decision of the court of appeals 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
2 
 
reversing the Waupaca County circuit court's1 grant of summary 
judgment in favor of American Transmission Company LLC and ATC 
Management, Inc. (collectively referred to as "ATC").  Garza v. 
Am. Transmission Co., Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279, unpublished 
slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2015) (per curiam). 
¶2 
This case requires us to decide whether ATC has the 
right, either under a 1969 deed of easement (hereinafter 
referred to as the "1969 easement") or by means of a 
prescriptive easement under Wis. Stat. § 893.28(2) (2013-14),2 to 
enter the property of Ricardo M. and Julie L. Garza ("the 
Garzas") and trim some, and remove other, trees which are 
threatening or endangering the operation of one of ATC's 
electric transmission lines.  We hold that, under the 1969 deed 
of easement, ATC has the right to enter the Garzas' property to 
both trim and remove the trees that threaten or endanger the 
operation of the relevant transmission line.3  This is so 
because, contrary to what the Garzas argue, the 1969 easement is 
still in effect, thereby allowing ATC to enter their property.  
The 1969 easement's language "comprising wood pole structures" 
is language of description, not circumscription, and as such, it 
                                                 
1 The Honorable Mark J. McGinnis presiding. 
2 All subsequent references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to 
the 2013-14 version unless otherwise indicated. 
3 Because we resolve the case under the 1969 deed of 
easement, we do not address whether ATC has prescriptive rights 
under Wis. Stat. § 893.28(2) to trim and remove trees on the 
Garzas' property.   
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
3 
 
does not limit the transmission line to being constructed on 
wood poles, thereby terminating the 1969 easement.  Rather, the 
1969 easement grants to the dominant estate holder (here ATC) 
the right to make the change from wood poles to steel poles.  
Therefore, the decision of the court of appeals is reversed. 
I.  FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
¶3 
Jerome and Betty Hertig ("the Hertigs") granted an 
easement to the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation ("WPSC") by 
deed dated June 28, 1969.  The 1969 easement was recorded on 
July 8, 1969. 
¶4 
The 
1969 
easement 
is 
titled 
"Transmission 
Line 
Easement."  It grants WPSC  
the perpetual right, privilege and easement to erect, 
maintain and operate an electric transmission line, 
comprising wood pole structures[4] conductors and other 
wires, counterpoises, guy wires, braces and other 
usual appendages and appurtenances of such kind as 
said Grantee, its successors and assigns, may from 
time to time determine, for transmitting electric 
current over and across [the Hertigs' property.] 
The 1969 easement continues with a property description of the 
Hertigs' property and a description of the easement route.   
¶5 
The 1969 easement also provides: 
Together with the right from time to time to enter 
upon said premises for the purpose of erecting said 
line, and changing, repairing, patrol[l]ing, replacing 
and removing the same, and the right from time to time 
                                                 
4 The 1969 easement was a form easement used by WPSC at the 
time the Hertigs and WPSC entered the 1969 easement.  The 
underlined language represents a blank space on the easement 
form that the parties completed. 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
4 
 
to clear all brush and trees within 40 feet of each 
side of the center line of such transmission line and 
the right from time to time to cut down, trim or 
remove such trees on said premises beyond such 40 feet 
as in the judgment of Grantee, its successors and 
assigns, may interfere with or endanger said line, and 
to do any and all other acts necessary in the proper 
erection, maintenance, safeguarding, and operation of 
said line. 
¶6 
Pursuant to the 1969 easement, WPSC constructed a 69 
kV5 transmission line on wood pole structures on the route 
described therein.6  Following the 1969 easement, in 1977, the 
Hertigs subdivided their property to create Woodland Park 
Estates subdivision. 
¶7 
In 1995, to meet the community's increased electrical 
needs, WPSC upgraded the transmission line from a 69 kV line to 
a double-circuit 69 kV/138 kV7 line to allow the transmission 
line to carry more electricity.  WPSC also replaced the wood 
poles supporting the transmission line with steel poles. 
¶8 
WPSC assigned the easement to ATC in 2001, and the 
assignment was recorded the same day.   
¶9 
On September 30, 2004, the Garzas purchased Lot 1 of 
Woodland Park Estates.  There is no dispute that, at the time of 
purchase, the Garzas were aware of the transmission line.  They 
                                                 
5 kV stands for kilovolts and serves as a way to measure 
electricity. 
6 A visual depiction of the transmission line's route is 
included in the Appendix. 
7 This double-circuit line is composed of two transmission 
lines. 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
5 
 
saw the transmission line and received a copy of the 1969 
easement with the paperwork when they purchased their home.  In 
addition, the 1969 easement was noted on their title insurance 
policy. 
¶10 Because Lot 1 is in the southeastern corner of 
Woodland Park Estates, the transmission line is not on the 
Garzas' property.  However, the Garzas' property is still 
impacted by the 1969 easement (1) because it is located within 
the 80-foot strip of land wherein WPSC reserved the right to 
clear all trees and brush and (2) because WPSC reserved the 
right to trim and remove trees that "interfere with or endanger" 
the transmission line even if the trees are located outside the 
80-foot strip of land. 
¶11 In late 2010, ATC contacted the Garzas to notify them 
that it needed to enter the Garzas' property to perform 
maintenance for the operation of the transmission line, which in 
this case required trimming and removing trees both on and 
bordering the Garzas' property.  The trimming and removal was 
necessary because the trees threatened or endangered the 
operation of the transmission line.  As ATC explained in its 
brief, trimming and removing the trees was necessary "to ensure 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
6 
 
the safe and reliable operation of the transmission line."8  It 
would also ensure the safety of anyone who may need to perform 
work on a transmission line. 
¶12 While ATC was able to perform some of the necessary 
work in August 2011, the Garzas prevented ATC from completing 
its maintenance project, and this suit followed. 
¶13 The Garzas filed an inverse condemnation action on 
September 6, 2011, in the Waupaca County circuit court (L.C. No. 
2011CV467), and on September 8, 2011, ATC filed a declaratory 
judgment action (L.C. No. 2011CV478) in which it sought an order 
from the court declaring that it had a right, under the 1969 
easement and/or pursuant to the rights of prescriptive easement 
under Wis. Stat. § 893.28(2), to enter the Garzas' property and 
trim and remove the trees threatening or endangering the 
operation of the transmission line. 
¶14 On October 3, 2011, the Garzas filed counterclaims in 
which they sought (1) a declaratory judgment that ATC did not 
have the right to enter their property to trim and remove trees 
                                                 
8 To make its point that maintaining trees and other 
vegetation surrounding a transmission line is important, ATC 
points to an event in 2003 in Ohio where a tree damaged a 
transmission line and caused roughly 50 million people to lose 
power for two days.  See Brian S. Tomasovic, A High-Voltage 
Conflict on Blackacre:  Reorienting Utility Easement Rights for 
Electric Reliability, 36 Colum. J. Envtl. L. 1, 6-7 (2011).  In 
fact, "[t]he courts have recognized that properly and safely 
maintaining power lines involves keeping the wires clear of 
interference, in the context of an easement acquired by 
condemnation."  Gallagher v. Grant-Lafayette Elec. Co-op, 2001 
WI App 276, ¶18, 249 Wis. 2d 115, 637 N.W.2d 80. 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
7 
 
and (2) alleged trespass, intentional property damage, and 
inverse condemnation. 
¶15 After the cases were consolidated, ATC moved for 
summary judgment, and the Garzas' moved for a declaratory 
judgment.  The circuit court, in addressing both motions, found, 
inter alia, that, under the 1969 easement, "ATC is allowed to 
remove the trees at issue and they do not trespass on the 
Garzas' property in doing so."  The circuit court stated, "The 
unambiguous language of the easement allows for changing, 
repairing, and/or replacing the transmission line over the 
course of time in perpetuity.  The language of the easement 
demonstrates that the parties obviously wanted the easement to 
survive changes in both power needs and technology."  Therefore, 
because Wisconsin law allows the dominant estate holder to do 
what is reasonably necessary to continue enjoying the right to 
use9 granted under a deed of easement, the circuit court found 
that the 1969 easement was not invalidated when the wood poles 
were replaced with steel poles.  The circuit court found it 
important that WPSC "stayed within the general bounds of the 
easement and only furthered the use of the enjoyment when the 
power demands of the area necessitated changing the facility."  
Consequently, the circuit court granted ATC's motion for summary 
judgment and denied the Garzas' motion for a declaratory 
judgment.   
                                                 
9 The right to use is a term of art that includes, among 
other things, the right to reasonable implementation of advances 
in technology.  This term will be described in greater detail. 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
8 
 
¶16 The circuit court also found that summary judgment was 
improper for determining whether ATC had any prescriptive 
easement rights under Wis. Stat. § 893.28(2) because "there are 
questions of fact as to the scope of any prescriptive easement" 
that precluded summary judgment.  The Garzas appealed. 
¶17 The court of appeals reversed the circuit court.  
Garza, unpublished slip op., ¶1.  It interpreted the 1969 
easement as limiting the transmission line to being constructed 
on a wood pole structure.  Id., ¶15.  Thus, the court of appeals 
"reasoned," the transmission line upon which the 1969 easement 
was founded no longer exists and therefore ATC has no rights to 
enter the Garzas' property.  Id., ¶16.  The court of appeals 
also stated that ATC failed to show that it has prescriptive 
easement rights to trim and remove trees on the Garzas' 
property.  Id., ¶22.  Consequently, the court of appeals 
reversed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor 
of ATC and remanded the case for further proceedings.  Id., ¶23. 
¶18 ATC petitioned this court for review, which this court 
granted on April 6, 2016.  We now address whether ATC has the 
right to trim and remove the trees threatening or endangering 
the operation of the transmission line under the 1969 easement. 
II.  STANDARD OF REVIEW 
¶19 This case requires us to review a decision of summary 
judgment and requires us to review an interpretation of a deed 
of easement.  This court reviews a decision of summary judgment 
de novo.  Borek Cranberry Marsh, Inc. v. Jackson County, 2010 WI 
95, 
¶11, 
328 
Wis. 2d 613, 
785 
N.W.2d 615. 
 
"The 
proper 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
9 
 
construction of an easement is a question of law that we review 
de novo."  Id., ¶12. 
III.  DISCUSSION 
A.  Summary Judgment 
¶20 Summary judgment must be granted "if the pleadings, 
depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, 
together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no 
genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party 
is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."  Wis. Stat. 
§ 802.08(2). 
¶21 In making this determination, this court applies a 
two-step test.  Green Springs Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis. 2d 304, 
314-15, 401 N.W.2d 816 (1987).  Under the first step, this court 
asks if the plaintiff stated a claim for relief.  Id. at 315.  
Under the second step, this court applies the summary judgment 
statute and asks if any factual issues exist that preclude a 
grant of summary judgment.  Id. 
¶22 Here, we must interpret the 1969 easement to determine 
whether ATC's motion for summary judgment should be granted. 
B.  Relevant Principles of Easement Law 
¶23 An easement grants a right to use another's land.  
Konneker v. Romano, 2010 WI 65, ¶25, 326 Wis. 2d 268, 785 
N.W.2d 432 (quoting Hunter v. McDonald, 78 Wis. 2d 338, 343, 254 
N.W.2d 282 (1977)).  It also creates two estates:  the dominant 
estate enjoys the ability to use the land in the way described 
in the easement, while the servient estate permits that use.  
Id.  The dominant estate holder's "use of the easement must be 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
10 
 
in accordance with and confined to the terms and purposes of the 
grant."  Id. (quoting Stoesser v. Shore Drive P'ship, 172 
Wis. 2d 660, 668, 494 N.W.2d 204 (1993)).  Any use not in 
accordance with the specific right to use granted in the 
easement is outside the easement's scope and thus prohibited.  
See Grygiel v. Monches Fish & Game Club, Inc., 2010 WI 93, ¶34, 
328 Wis. 2d 436, 787 N.W.2d 6. 
¶24 For a written easement, "[t]he primary source of the 
parties' intent is what is written within the four corners of 
the deed."  Konneker, 326 Wis. 2d 268, ¶26.  Thus, we look to 
the deed of easement10——here the 1969 easement——to determine what 
right to use the dominant estate holder has. 
¶25 If the language contained in the deed of easement is 
unambiguous, we look no further than the deed of easement 
itself.  Id.  However, if the language is ambiguous, we resort 
to extrinsic evidence to help us determine the parties' 
intentions.  Id.  In this case, we conclude that the 1969 
easement is unambiguous, and we need look no further than the 
language contained in the 1969 easement. 
C.  Interpretation of the 1969 Easement 
¶26 The Garzas argue that ATC does not have the right to 
enter their property to trim or remove the trees threatening or 
endangering the operation of the transmission line because the 
change from wood poles to steel poles invalidated the easement.  
                                                 
10 A deed of easement is a document that contains the terms 
of a written easement. 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
11 
 
They base their argument on language within the 1969 easement 
referring to "wood pole structures."  The Garzas claim the 
entire 1969 easement is premised on the right to construct a 
transmission line on wood poles.  Accordingly, without a 
transmission line constructed on wood poles, the 1969 easement 
and the rights granted in connection with that transmission line 
cease to exist.  Thus, the Garzas argue, the 1969 easement is 
invalid and ATC no longer has the right to enter the Garzas' 
property.  
¶27 ATC, on the other hand, argues that to interpret the 
language "comprising wood pole structures" so as to proscribe 
other materials from being used in the structure is to read that 
phrase out of context and preclude evaluation of the 1969 
easement as a whole.  ATC further argues that replacing the wood 
poles with steel poles is permitted under the implied term 
contained in every easement that the dominant estate holder may 
do what is reasonably necessary to continue enjoying the right 
to use granted under a deed of easement.  Thus, ATC argues the 
change from wood poles to steel poles did not invalidate the 
1969 easement and, with the 1969 easement still in place, ATC 
has the right to enter the Garzas' property to trim and remove 
the trees threatening or endangering the operation of the 
transmission line. 
¶28 We agree with ATC.   
1.  An Easement Allows for Advances in Technology and Reasonable 
Implementation of Such Advances Does Nothing to Extinguish the 
Rights Granted Therein 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
12 
 
¶29 We have long recognized that, implied in every 
easement, unless otherwise stated, is the right of the dominant 
estate to do what is reasonably necessary to enjoy the easement.  
Scheeler v. Dewerd, 256 Wis. 428, 41 N.W.2d 635 (1950) (allowing 
the parties to upgrade well facilities from a hand pump to 
modern plumbing equipment); see also McDonnell v. Sheets, 15 
N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1944) (allowing a dominant estate holder 
to use an easement for ingress and egress as a driveway for 
automobiles when the easement stated "team and wagon").  The 
Restatement (Third) of Property describes the "right to use" as 
follows:   
Except as limited by the terms of the servitude 
determined under § 4.1, the holder of an easement or 
profit as defined in § 1.2 is entitled to use the 
servient estate in a manner that is reasonably 
necessary 
for 
the 
convenient 
enjoyment 
of 
the 
servitude.  The manner, frequency, and intensity of 
the use may change over time to take advantage of 
developments in technology and to accommodate normal 
development of the dominant estate or enterprise 
benefited by the servitude.  Unless authorized by the 
terms of the servitude, the holder is not entitled to 
cause unreasonable damage to the servient estate or 
interfere unreasonably with its enjoyment. 
Restatement (Third) of Property:  Servitudes § 4.10 (Am. Law 
Inst. 2000) (emphasis added). 
¶30 We conclude that the change from wood to steel poles 
was a reasonable change made in order to take advantage of 
developments in technology.  The authorization from the Public 
Service Commission of Wisconsin ("PSCW") noted that the changes 
made to the transmission line in 1995 would be an upgrade that 
would "allow electric distribution system improvements to occur" 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
13 
 
and noted that the old lines were incapable of providing the 
electricity needed in the area.   
¶31 Although the holder of a dominant estate may take 
advantage of advances in technology to make more full or 
convenient use of the right(s) granted within the easement, the 
dominant estate's ability to take advantage of advances in 
technology is not unlimited.  The dominant estate may not "cause 
unreasonable 
damage 
to 
the 
servient 
estate 
or 
interfere 
unreasonably with its enjoyment."  Restatement (Third) of 
Property:  Servitudes § 4.10.  Thus, any changes in the dominant 
estate's use may not place an undue burden on the servient 
estate. 
 
See 
Hunter, 
78 
Wis. 2d at 
344 
("The 
dominant 
owner's . . . interest is not an estate in land, but rather a 
right to use the land of another for a special purpose not 
inconsistent with the general property in the owner.").  A 
change in use that places such a burden on the servient estate 
is outside the scope of the dominant estate's right to use.  See 
Grygiel, 328 Wis. 2d 436, ¶34. 
¶32 The change from wood to steel placed no undue burden 
on the servient estate.  It is undisputed that steel poles can 
support more weight than wood poles and allow for longer spans 
between poles.  This means fewer poles are needed to support the 
upgraded transmission line, and the Garzas have failed to show 
how the placement of fewer supporting structures——regardless of 
what they are constructed of——along the route of the easement 
places more of a burden on the servient estate because there are 
fewer of them.  See id., ¶23 (quoting Millen v. Thomas, 201 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
14 
 
Wis. 2d 675, 683-85, 550 N.W.2d 134 (Ct. App. 1996)).  The steel 
poles were also constructed within the boundary established by 
the 1969 easement, which means the steel poles do not occupy any 
additional space.  Accordingly, no showing has been made that an 
undue burden was placed on the servient estate. 
2.  The Significance of the Phrase "Comprising Wood Pole 
Structures" 
¶33 Nevertheless, the Garzas argue that the language of 
the 1969 easement expressly forecloses ATC from installing steel 
poles because the 1969 easement refers to the transmission line 
as "comprising wood pole structures."  However, we conclude that 
this language places no limitation on ATC's right to take 
advantage 
of 
reasonable 
advances 
in 
technology 
because 
"comprising wood pole structures" is language of description, 
not circumscription. 
¶34 At the beginning of the easement, the context suggests 
the parties intention that the 1969 easement be for the purpose 
of constructing and operating a transmission line:  Notably, the 
1969 easement is titled "Transmission Line Easement" (and not, 
for example, "Easement for the Construction of Wood Pole 
Structures"), and the first right granted in the 1969 easement 
is the right "to erect, maintain and operate an electric 
transmission line."  The language within the easement is 
reflective of the parties' intent that the 1969 easement be for 
the construction and operation of a transmission line.  There is 
no indication that the parties intended to place any sort of 
limitation on either the construction material or on the 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
15 
 
dominant estate holder's right "to erect, maintain and operate 
an electric transmission line." 
¶35 The 1969 easement goes on to grant to the "Grantee, 
its successors and assigns" the right to, "from time to time 
determine," the type of conductors, wires, etc. to be used "for 
transmitting electric current over and across" the property.  
Furthermore, the easement grants the right to enter the property 
"for the purpose of erecting said line, and changing, repairing, 
patrol[l]ing, replacing and removing the same," and the right 
"to do any and all other acts necessary in the proper erection, 
maintenance, safeguarding, and operation of said line."   
¶36 Read as a whole,11 this language reflects an intention 
on the part of the parties to the 1969 easement to grant the 
dominant estate holder the ability to construct and operate a 
transmission line.  Additional terms touch upon such concepts as 
"changing" and "replacing" that indicate that the parties 
intended the dominant estate holder to have the ability to 
change its use in a way that allows for the continued operation 
of the transmission line.  Cf. Wis. Pub. Serv. Corp. v. Andrews, 
2009 
WI 
App 
30, 
¶12, 
316 
Wis. 2d 734, 
766 
N.W.2d 232 
(interpreting "reconstruct" to allow the dominant estate holder 
to upgrade a transmission line from 161 kV to 345 kV).   
¶37 In addition, the 1969 easement allows the dominant 
estate holder discretion to determine how the transmission line 
                                                 
11 See Borek Cranberry Marsh, Inc. v. Jackson County, 2010 
WI 95, ¶¶31-32, 328 Wis. 2d 613, 785 N.W.2d 615. 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
16 
 
should be constructed.  The 1969 easement starts with the 
following grant of rights:  
[T]he perpetual right, privilege and easement to 
erect, maintain and operate an electric transmission 
line, comprising wood pole structures conductors and 
other wires, counterpoises, guy wires, braces and 
other usual appendages and appurtenances of such kind 
as said Grantee, its successors and assigns, may from 
time to time determine, for transmitting electric 
current over and across [the property].   
But, it does not end there.  The parties also included a right 
in the 1969 easement that grants discretion to the dominant 
estate to determine what is "necessary in the proper erection, 
maintenance, safeguarding, and operation of said line."  Perhaps 
most tellingly, what the parties did not include was a provision 
requiring that the transmission line be limited to being placed 
on a wood pole structure.  See Atkinson v. Mentzel, 211 
Wis. 2d 628, 638-39, 566 N.W.2d 158 (Ct. App. 1997) (limiting 
the uses granted in an easement to anything other than retail 
sales because the easement granted "access for all uses of said 
property other than retail sales"). 
¶38 It is true that the right "to erect, maintain and 
operate an electric transmission line" is followed by the 
language "comprising wood pole structures."  However, we must 
read "comprising wood pole structures" within the context 
described above, which indicates that the parties did not intend 
to limit the transmission line to a wood pole structure.  See 
Borek, 328 Wis. 2d 613, ¶¶31-32 (using the easement's title——
"Easement for Flowage Rights"——and other language contained in 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
17 
 
the deed of easement to interpret the meaning of "heirs and 
assigns").  We will not take "comprising wood pole structures" 
to place a limit on the dominant estate holder's right to use 
the servient estate for a transmission line when the entirety of 
the 1969 easement indicates there is no such limit:  the title 
of the 1969 easement ("Transmission Line Easement"), the 
language of the first right granted to the dominant estate 
holder, and the additional rights granted to the dominant estate 
to, inter alia, change and replace the transmission line and to 
take actions considered necessary for the operation of the 
transmission line indicate the dominant estate holder has 
flexibility in its right to use the servient estate for the 
transmission line.  
3.  The Present Use Is Consistent with the Purpose of the 1969 
Easement 
¶39 "The use of the easement must be in accordance with 
and confined to the terms and purposes of the grant."  Hunter, 
78 Wis. 2d at 343; see also Grygiel, 328 Wis. 2d 436, ¶36 
(interpreting a deed of easement for ingress and egress 
consistently with the purpose for which the easement was 
granted——access to the defendant's property).  In this case, the 
purpose of the 1969 easement is to transmit electricity.  
Therefore, 
elevating 
the 
phrase 
"comprising 
wood 
pole 
structures" to the status of a limitation on the dominant 
estate's ability to operate the transmission line would be 
inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the 1969 easement, 
namely to transmit electricity.  See AKG Real Estate, LLC v. 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
18 
 
Kosterman, 2006 WI 106, ¶¶23-24, 296 Wis. 2d 1, 717 N.W.2d 835 
(refusing to allow the width of an easement for ingress and 
egress to determine that the easement's purpose was for building 
a public road because the easement width (66 feet) was the exact 
width needed to build a public road).   
¶40 Interpreting the 1969 easement to permit the use of 
other materials such as steel is consistent with the 1969 
easement's purpose to transmit electricity because, as the PSCW 
recognized when it approved the application to upgrade the 
transmission line, transmission of the necessary voltage of 
electric current using the original transmission line on the 
original structure was no longer feasible. 
4.  The PSCW Authorization 
¶41 As an alternative argument, the Garzas argue that 
Point 33 of the PSCW's authorization to upgrade the transmission 
line terminated the 1969 easement.  Point 33 states:  
That WEPCO and WPS shall remove the wires and 
structures of all existing 34 kV, 46 kV, 69 kV, and 
115 kV lines retired or taken out of operation as part 
of this project, and properly backfill all holes where 
structures are removed.  Easements for rights-of-way 
of removed lines shall be terminated, forfeiting all 
rights to the landowners. 
Like the circuit court, we conclude this argument is unavailing.  
As the circuit court said,  
it is clear that paragraph 33 only terminates the 
easements where the entire installation was removed, 
not where a new facility was installed replacing the 
old.  It would be nonsensical to find that the PSCW 
was ordering easements to be terminated where it was 
simultaneously 
ordering 
new 
facilities 
to 
be 
constructed. 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
19 
 
When read in the context of the rest of the PSCW's 1994 
authorization, it is therefore clear that the PSCW did not 
intend to terminate rights-of-way for transmission lines being 
replaced but, rather, intended only to terminate rights-of-way 
for transmission lines that were being removed and not replaced.  
The rights of ATC under the terms of the 1969 easement are 
unaffected by this term.   
5.  Visual Blight 
¶42 The Garzas also claim that the transmission line 
causes visual blight; however, we decline to address this 
argument because it was not properly developed and argued.12  See 
State v. Gulrud, 140 Wis. 2d 721, 730, 412 N.W.2d 139 (Ct. App. 
1987) (declining to address an argument because the defendant 
did not "explain his contention or develop his argument").   
IV.  CONCLUSION 
¶43 We hold that, under the 1969 deed of easement, ATC has 
the right to enter the Garzas' property to both trim and remove 
the trees that threaten or endanger the operation of the 
relevant transmission line.  The 1969 easement's language 
"comprising wood pole structures" is language of description, 
not circumscription, and as such, it does not limit the 
transmission line to being constructed on wood poles.  Rather, 
the 1969 easement grants to the dominant estate (here ATC) the 
right to make the change from wood poles to steel poles.  A 
                                                 
12 The Garzas raised visual blight in a few footnotes in 
their brief. 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
20 
 
dominant estate has the right to do what is reasonably necessary 
to enjoy the right to use granted in a deed of easement, 
provided no undue burden is placed on the servient estate. 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed. 
 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
21 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279   
 
 
 
1