Case Title: Edgcomb v. Lower Valley Power and Light, Inc.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1996-08-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
Edgcomb v. Lower Valley Power and Light, Inc.1996 WY 106922 P.2d 850Case Number: 95-218Decided: 08/07/1996Supreme Court of Wyoming
L. 
Richard EDGCOMB and Carolyn D. Edgcomb,

 Appellants 
(Defendants),

v.

LOWER VALLEY POWER AND 
LIGHT, INC.,

 Appellee (Plaintiff).

Appeal from District 
Court, Teton County, D. Terry Rogers, J.

Gerald Mason of 
Mason & Graham, P.C., Pinedale, on oral argument; Paul K. Knight and Sara E. 
Van Genderen of Mullikin, Larson & Swift, LLC, Jackson, on brief, for 
Appellant.

Marilyn S. Kite, 
Stephen R. Duerr, and Paula A. Fleck of Holland & Hart, Jackson, for 
Appellee.

Before 
TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY and GOLDEN,* JJ., and SULLINS, 
District Judge.

* Chief Justice at time of 
oral argument.

THOMAS, Justice.

[¶1]      The claim of 
error is that genuine issues of material fact prevented the entry of summary 
judgment by the district court in favor of Lower Valley Power and Light, Inc. 
(Lower Valley) and against Jeffrey Wanamaker (Wanamaker), the prior owner of 
land sold to L. Richard and Carolyn D. Edgcomb (Edgcombs). Lower Valley, 
pursuant to grant of an easement from Wanamaker's predecessors in interest, 
operated an electric transmission line over the subject land from 1956 until 
1992. In 1992, after obtaining the requisite authority to add a fiber optics 
cable for communications transmission, Lower Valley advised Wanamaker it needed 
to enter his property to replace the existing static line with the fiber optics 
cable. Wanamaker denied access, asserting there was no valid easement, and the 
existing transmission line constituted a trespass and nuisance. Lower Valley 
then commenced this action seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, 
ejectment, and damages for trespass against Wanamaker, who responded with an 
answer incorporating various counterclaims. The Edgcombs, as successors to the 
lawsuit as well as the land, appeal from the summary judgment in favor of Lower 
Valley. They assert genuine issues of material fact as to the intended scope, 
dimensions, and location of the easement; the impact of electromagnetic fields; 
and the existence of a nuisance. They also argue the legal invalidity of the 
easement pursuant to WYO. STAT. § 34-1-141 (1981)1. We hold none of the claimed 
genuine issues of fact are material in this case, and we affirm the summary 
judgment entered in the trial court.

[¶2]      In their Brief of 
Appellant, the Edgcombs state the issues as:

1.         
Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of 
Appellee Lower Valley Power and Light, Inc. in finding that Appellee has a 
floating easement on Appellant Jeffrey Wanamaker's property because there exist 
genuine issues of material fact as to the intended scope, dimensions, and 
location of the easement granted to Appellee in 1954.

2.         
Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of 
Appellee Lower Valley Power and Light, Inc. on Appellant Jeffrey Wanamaker's 
counterclaim for trespass because there exist genuine issues of material fact as 
to the physical dimensions of the easement and as to whether the electromagnetic 
fields emitted from the transmission line traversing Appellant's property have 
an actual effect or impact on the property.

3.         
Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of 
Appellee Lower Valley Power and Light, Inc. on Appellant Jeffrey Wanamaker's 
counterclaim for nuisance because there exist genuine issues of material fact as 
to whether the electromagnetic fields emitted from the transmission line 
traversing Appellant's property are inherently harmful and unreasonably 
interfere with the use and enjoyment of the property.

Lower Valley 
states the issues differently in its Brief of Appellees:

A.        Does LVPL 
have a valid easement for an electrical transmission line, with a fiber optic 
cable, across all of Appellants' property?

B.        Can, as a 
matter of law, operation of the electrical transmission line on such easement 
constitute a trespass on Appellants' property?

C.        Can, as a 
matter of law, operation of the electrical transmission line on such easement 
constitute a nuisance?

D.        Are 
Appellants' claims of trespass and nuisance barred by the statute of 
limitations?

[¶3]      In 1954, Louis 
and Helen Z. Dopyera (Dopyeras) granted an easement across their land to Lower 
Valley for the purpose of an electrification or telephone transmission line. The 
agreement between the Dopyeras and Lower Valley provides, in part, as 
follows:

Distribution 
and

Transmission 
Line

Right-Of-Way 
Easement

Louis Dopyera and Helen 
Z. Dopyera * * * do hereby grant unto LOWER VALLEY POWER AND LIGHT, INC., * * * 
and to its successors or assigns, the perpetual right to enter upon the lands of 
the undersigned, situated in the County of Teton, State of Wyoming and more 
particularly described as follows:

A tract of land 
approximately 709.37 acres in area, located ____ miles 

in ____ a direction from 
the Town of                      and further described 

                                                                    16

as being in Section 5 
- 8 - 17 - 21 Township 38 Range 116 of the 
6-P

                                      
28 - 292

Meridian.

and to construct, 
reconstruct, rephase, repair, operate and maintain on the above-described lands 
and/or in or upon all streets, roads or highways abutting said lands, an 
electric transmission and/or distribution line or system, to cut and trim trees 
and shrubbery located within ____ feet of the center line of said line or 
system, or that may interfere with or threaten to endanger the operation and 
maintenance of said line or system, and to license, permit, or otherwise agree 
to the joint use or occupancy of the line or system by any other person, 
association or corporation for electrification or telephone 
purposes.

In 1979, 
Wanamaker acquired the servient tenement, subject to the easement owned by Lower 
Valley.

[¶4]      Construction of a 
69 KV transmission line was begun in 1954 and was completed in 1956 in its 
current location. The line delivers power to Jackson Hole Valley through the 
Snake River Canyon. As constructed, the line traversed seven sections of the 
land originally owned by the Dopyeras. In 1974, Lower Valley proposed to upgrade 
the capacity of the transmission line from 69 KV to 115 KV. A notice was 
published regarding this proposed change. The Public Service Commission (PSC) 
received no public comment about it, and no objections were received at a public 
meeting held to discuss it. In 1975, the line was reconstructed as a 115 KV line 
along the same path as the old line. Over the years from 1956, Lower Valley had 
entered the property to maintain the line without obtaining prior approval from 
Wanamaker or his predecessors.

[¶5]      In 1992, Lower 
Valley decided to replace the existing static telephone line with a fiber optics 
cable. Lower Valley then entered into an agreement with Silver Star Telephone 
Company (Silver Star) as a financial participant in the purchase and 
installation of a fiber optics cable along the existing transmission line. An 
application was made to the PSC for authority to construct a major utility 
facility consisting of the fiber optics cable. The PSC issued its order 
authorizing the fiber optics cable after finding Lower Valley and Silver Star 
had "demonstrated an immediate and critical need for this facility, which will 
benefit both utilities and their customers."

[¶6]      When Lower Valley 
advised Wanamaker it planned to enter his property to replace the static line 
with the fiber optics cable, Wanamaker denied access to the easement, asserting 
Lower Valley had no valid easement across the property, and the transmission 
line was a trespass and nuisance. Lower Valley then filed this action, seeking a 
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, ejectment, and damages for trespass 
against Wanamaker. Wanamaker answered and filed numerous counterclaims. After a 
battery of motions had been filed by both sides, Lower Valley filed its second 
motion for summary judgment supported by a brief.

[¶7]      Following the 
submission of briefs, affidavits, and exhibits by the parties, and a hearing on 
the motion, the trial court granted Lower Valley's second motion for summary 
judgment, concluding Lower Valley's easement extended throughout Wanamaker's 
property; Lower Valley had a floating easement and, with it as a matter of law, 
went the right to use and affect Wanamaker's property adjacent to the line as 
long as that use is within the scope of the easement; Wanamaker did not have an 
exclusive possessory interest so no trespass existed; nor was there any actual 
effect on the property, which also nullifies a claim of trespass; the presence 
and operation of the transmission line was authorized and, as a matter of law, 
there was no nuisance; and the operation and maintenance of the line did not 
interfere with Wanamaker's use of his property, and diminution in value of the 
property alone does not constitute a nuisance. Wanamaker appealed from that 
order and, after the Edgcombs purchased the property in 1995, subject to the 
easement, they continued to pursue this appeal.

[¶8]      Edgcombs first 
assert genuine issues of material fact exist relating to the intended scope, 
dimensions, and location of the easement granted to Lower Valley in 1954. The 
Edgcombs contend the trial court failed to apply basic rules of contract 
interpretation in not construing ambiguities as they exist in the easement 
against Lower Valley. In Steil v. Smith, 901 P.2d 395, 396 (Wyo. 1995), we 
stated the rules concerning construction of an easement:

The applicable standard 
of review is that we derive the meaning of an easement from its language, much 
as we would in the case of a deed or other written agreement. Tibbets v. P & 
M Petroleum Co., 744 P.2d 651, 652-53 (Wyo. 1987); and see 25 AM.JUR.2d 
Easements and Licenses § 75 (1966). If the language of the easement is not 
ambiguous and if the intent of the parties can be gathered from its language, 
that should be done as a matter of law. Glover v. Giraldo, 824 P.2d 552, 554 
(Wyo. 1992); and see Smith v. Nugget Exploration, Inc., 857 P.2d 320 (Wyo. 
1993); Tibbets, 744 P.2d  at 653. Where an easement is claimed under a grant, the 
extent of the right depends on its terms. If the terms are specific, that is 
decisive of the limits of the easement. Robertson v. Bertha Mineral Co., 128 Va. 
93, 104 S.E. 832, 835 (1920) (easement for railway to haul coal not an easement 
for general railway purposes); Parham v. Bradberry, 185 Miss. 402, 188 So. 298 
(1939) (stairway easement to second story office not good for access to balcony 
of adjoining theater); JAMES H. BACKMAN AND DAVID A. THOMAS, A PRACTICAL GUIDE 
TO DISPUTES BETWEEN ADJOINING LANDOWNERS-EASEMENTS, § 1.03[1][a] (1989); 25 
AM.JUR.2d Easements and Licenses § 74 (1966); and compare State v. Homar, 798 P.2d 824, 826 (Wyo. 1990). (Footnotes omitted, emphasis added.)

[¶9]      The Edgcombs 
argue the easement did not establish an intent of the parties to create a 
floating easement because it specifies sections of the servient estate within 
which the parties intended the easement to be located. We do not read the 
easement in the same way as the Edgcombs. An express easement not stating the 
location and dimensions is called a floating easement and is defined as an 
"[e]asement for right-of-way which, when created, is not limited to any specific 
area on servient tenement." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 640 (6th ed. 1990). This 
easement is silent with respect to the specific location and dimensions of the 
easement and, from that, we can infer the parties intended a floating easement 
at the time the easement was executed. The record does not inform us as to who 
designated the ultimate location of this easement, but it is clear it now is 
defined by the poles and lines traversing the Edgcombs' property. We hold the 
current location of the transmission line is the one the parties intended when 
the easement was created.

[¶10]   This resolution is consistent with 
the summarization of the law relating to express easements that fail to state 
the location and dimensions of the easement found in JON W. BRUCE AND JAMES W. 
ELY, JR., THE LAW OF EASEMENTS AND LICENSES IN LAND ¶ 7.02 (Rev. ed. 1995) 
[hereinafter BRUCE & ELY]:

[2]        Location or 
Dimensions Omitted or Inadequately Described

* * *

[b] Designation by 
Court

Parties frequently 
disagree over the location and dimensions of an express easement. Consequently, 
the description issue is often litigated. The initial point of inquiry is to 
determine whether the instrument creating the easement adequately locates the 
easement and describes its dimensions. When interpreting express easements, 
courts usually start with the proposition that the terms of the written 
instrument control. If the terms of description are inadequate or 
nonexistent, then extrinsic evidence may be considered to ascertain the intent 
of the parties as to the location and dimensions of the easement. The 
parties are presumed to have intended an easement that is reasonably convenient 
or necessary under the circumstances.

* * *

Once a court concludes 
that the location or the dimensions of the easement are not adequately described 
in the instrument, it generally examines the surrounding circumstances to 
determine the intent of the parties in this regard. The parties may have 
fixed the location and dimensions of the easement by oral or collateral written 
agreement. If not, the courts look to various factors to establish a reasonable 
description of the easement. As noted by the highest court of Kentucky, this 
process "taxes the best resources of judicial ingenuity." One factor is the 
purpose of the easement, which is particularly important with respect to 
ascertaining the dimensions of an inadequately described easement. Other 
factors include the geographic relationship between the dominant and the 
servient estates, the use of each of the estates, the benefit to the easement 
holder compared to the burden on the servient estate owner, and admissions of 
the parties. But the factor that the courts most frequently rely on is use of 
the servient estate for the purpose for which the easement was 
created.

Use commenced after the 
execution of the easement and to which the servient estate owner acquiesces is 
also persuasive. However, the courts must be careful to determine the location 
and dimensions of the easement on the basis of the circumstances at the time the 
easement was created. Once an inadequately described easement is fixed by use 
and acquiescence, the holder cannot successfully claim that a different width or 
route is reasonably convenient or necessary. (Footnotes omitted, 
emphasis added.)

[¶11]   Lower Valley's use of the property 
is consistent with an electrification or telephone distribution and transmission 
line, which is the purpose for the easement. It also is persuasive of the 
proposition that the Dopyeras, owners of the servient estate at the time the 
easement was entered into, acquiesced in the use and location of the easement, 
showing the intent of the parties. Wanamaker and Edgcombs, subsequent owners of 
the property, bought it with notice, both actual and constructive, of the 
transmission line. All of them acquiesced in the location and dimensions of the 
easement. The trial court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law No. 3 
correctly states: "LVPL's easement extends throughout the Defendant's property." 
Indeed, this was true at the time the easement was granted. Once the 
transmission line had been constructed, however, it then became an easement with 
a definite location established by the course of the transmission 
line.

[¶12]   The intent of the parties to this 
agreement that the floating easement become attached to a definite location also 
can be discerned from the easement:

Any rights of homestead 
or other interest the undersigned may 
have, inconsistent with the rights hereinabove conferred is hereby waived and 
relinquished to the extent necessary to permit the free enjoyment of said rights 
and to that extent only. (Emphasis added.)

This language 
demonstrates an intention of the Dopyeras, acquiesced in by Lower Valley, that 
Lower Valley should have free enjoyment of the easement for a transmission line, 
but only "to that extent" necessary for such a line. Lower Valley acquiesced in 
the limitation.

[¶13]   Limiting the scope of the easement 
to the transmission line location as constructed accomplishes the purpose of the 
limitation set forth in the easement. This resolution also avoids the problem of 
burdening a servient estate with a floating easement, as identified in BRUCE 
& ELY ¶ 7.02[3], because it removes the burden attaching to the entire 
servient estate. The burdens upon development of the servient estate, limitation 
of financing possibilities, and alienation of the servient estate are all 
reduced. We hold the language of the easement is clear and unambiguous in this 
regard, and the intent of the parties can be gathered from the instrument. The 
floating easement granted by the easement became definitely located once the 
line was constructed. Lower Valley no longer has any right to burden the 
entirety of the Edgcombs' property, nor can the Edgcombs claim it is an invalid 
easement because it is not definitely located.

[¶14]   The Edgcombs also rely upon the 
language of the easement, which reads "to cut and trim trees and shrubbery 
located ____ within feet of the center line of said line or system, or that may 
interfere with or threaten to endanger the operation and maintenance of said 
line or system * * *." The Edgcombs contend the purpose of this blank in the 
phrase was to describe a width for the easement evidencing the intent to limit 
the easement to a specific area. We held above that the use established the 
location of the transmission line, and it is not necessary to consider whether 
this quoted language was intended to limit the easement to a specific area. A 
question as to the width of the easement remains. There can be no question the 
line with the blank in it was there to describe the width of the easement, but 
the grantors chose to leave it blank, evidencing an intent to provide no 
specific limit to the width or dimensions of the easement.

[¶15]   This precise question was addressed 
in the Supreme Court of South Carolina in a case in which a utility was sued for 
cutting trees farther from the power line than the property owner thought was 
necessary, and the court said:

Where a deed or other 
instrument grants the right-of-way but does not specify the width of such way, 
the determination of the width becomes basically a matter of the construction of 
the instrument with strong consideration being given to what is reasonably 
convenient and necessary to accomplish the purpose for which the way was 
created. Where an instrument makes reference to the purpose for which the way is 
to be used, such is of aid in determining the width of the way. 25 Am.Jur.2d, 
Easements and Licenses, Section 78, p. 485.

Patterson v. 
Duke Power Co., 256 S.C. 479, 183 S.E.2d 122, 124 (1971).

This approach is 
very like the one we articulated in Bard Ranch Co. v. Weber, 557 P.2d 722, 730 
(Wyo. 1976), where we said: "The owner of the easement is said to have all 
rights incident or necessary to its proper enjoyment, but nothing more." We hold 
the trial court, in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law No. 4, correctly 
identified the dimension of the easement when it said: "As a matter of law, LVPL 
has the right to use and affect the Defendant's property adjacent to the 
transmission line as long as that use is necessary to the operation of the line 
and within the scope of the easement." The dimensions of this easement are 
limited by what is reasonably convenient and necessary to provide a distribution 
and transmission line for electrification or telephone purposes. We do not 
understand Lower Valley to be claiming anything more.

[¶16]   In their next argument, the 
Edgcombs assert that, in the 1970s, Lower Valley substantially changed the 
carrying capacity of the transmission line from 69 KV to 115 KV in reliance upon 
a defective and incomplete easement. They claim Lower Valley increased the 
nature of the original easement by utilizing more land for the placement of 
additional poles and lines; increased the visual impact of the lines; and 
increased the area affected by the electromagnetic fields. The Edgcombs argue 
all of this was accomplished without obtaining an additional easement or paying 
additional consideration.

[¶17]   We spoke to this problem in Bard 
Ranch Co., 557 P.2d  at 731, saying:

Again quoting from 
American Jurisprudence:

"The rights of any person 
having an easement in the land of another are measured and defined by the 
purpose and character of the easement. A principle which 
underlies the use of all easements is that the owner of the easement cannot 
materially increase the burden of the servient estate or impose thereon a new 
and additional burden. * * *" 25 AmJur2d Easements and Licenses § 72, p. 
478.

We do not want our 
opinion to be construed as freezing the permissible use of either the easement 
or adjacent lands strictly to the manner of use that was being made at the time 
of the grant. After construing the 
grant as creating a general easement the court said in Cameron v. Barton, 272 S.W.2d 40, 41 (Ky. 1954):

"* * * This being so, the 
passway may be used in such a manner as is necessary in the proper and 
reasonable occupation and enjoyment of the dominant estate. * * * As the 
passage of time creates new needs and the uses of property change, a normal 
change in the manner of using a passway does not constitute a deviation from the 
original grant, and modern transportation uses are not restricted to the 
ancient modes of travel. * * *"

The Supreme Court of 
Oregon expresses the rule in Jones v. Edwards, 219 Or. 429, 347 P.2d 846, 848 
(1959):

"* * * Unless the 
language of the creating instrument or the attending circumstances at the time 
of the grant indicate a contrary intent, the scope of an easement is not limited 
to the uses contemplated to be made at the time of or immediately after its 
creation, either with respect to the permissible uses of the easement or with 
respect to the permissible uses which may be made of the servient land by the 
servient owner. In the absence of a contrary intent both the uses of the 
dominant and servient owners are subject to adjustment consistent with the 
normal development of their respective lands. * * * The servient owner `is 
privileged to make such uses of the servient tenement as are not inconsistent 
with the provisions of the creating instrument' and in the application of this 
principle the servient owner's use of his land `may vary as the respective needs 
of himself and the owner of the easement vary.' 5 Restatement, 
Property (Servitudes) 3027, § 486. [Citing other authorities]" (Emphasis 
added.)

[¶18]   Limitation in this easement is "to 
the extent necessary to permit the free enjoyment of said rights and to that 
extent only." It is clear on the record that enhancement of the line by Lower 
Valley from 69 KV to 115 KV was contemplated by the easement, which provides for 
an "electric transmission and/or distribution line or system" for 
"electrification or telephone purposes." The increase of the line capacity from 
69 KV to 115 KV in 1975 and the proposed fiber optics line are consistent with 
the normal development of the respective rights and use, and these changes do 
not alter the scope of the easement.

[¶19]   This record is clear that, in 1974, 
no objection was lodged by Wanamaker's predecessors in interest to the 
construction of the 115 KV line or to its continued operation. The record 
discloses no public comment was received in response to a public notice by the 
PSC about the planned upgrade, and no objection to the upgrade was lodged at the 
public meeting held to discuss the project. We hold neither the 1975 enhancement 
from 69 KV to 115 KV nor the proposed fiber optics line deviates from the 
intention of the parties to the easement. Neither of these uses increases the 
scope of the easement; they are only normal changes in the manner of using the 
easement.

[¶20]   The Edgcombs argue a genuine issue 
of material fact exists concerning the intention of the parties to the easement 
because the records in the office of the county clerk of Teton County, in which 
the easement was recorded in August 1954, do not show all of the sections 
included in the easement presented to the court. They contend that, since 
Sections 16, 28, and 29 were not included in the records of the Teton County 
clerk, those sections must have been added to the easement at some later date. 
They also assert this analysis is substantiated by the fact that the numeral 
"16" is placed over the "-" (dash) between the numerals "8" and "17" and the 
numerals "28 - 29" were placed below the line underneath "5 - 8 - 17" in the 
document, instead of being written in sequence.

[¶21]   With respect to this contention, 
Lower Valley points out that Sections 28 and 29 are located in Lincoln County, 
and transactions relating to those sections normally would not be recorded in 
Teton County. Lower Valley also argues no evidence was presented that the 
grantors objected to the placement of the transmission line on Sections 16, 28, 
and 29, and their acquiescence and that of their successors, persisting for 
forty years, is persuasive the intention of the parties was that the 
transmission line should cross all seven sections. It is clear, without the 
lands in Sections 16, 28, and 29, the transmission line would not be continuous 
and, therefore, would not be functional. These are persuasive arguments, but the 
Edgcombs presented this contention for the first time on appeal. "This court 
will not consider issues that are raised for the first time on appeal." Stuckey 
v. State ex rel. Wyoming Worker's Compensation Div., 890 P.2d 1097, 1100 (Wyo. 
1995), and cases there cited.

[¶22]   The Edgcombs' final argument 
concerning validity of the easement is that Lower Valley was not entitled to 
summary judgment because WYO. STAT. § 34-1-1413 voids the document. The Edgcombs 
contend this statute requires a specific description of the location of the 
easement and invalidates the easement since no specific description was 
articulated. In Mueller v. Hoblyn, 887 P.2d 500 (Wyo. 1994), we considered the 
retroactivity of WYO. STAT. § 34-1-141. We held an easement granted in 1969, 
prior to the adoption of WYO. STAT. § 34-1-141, was valid and enforceable 
against the grantor's successor, where the successor took with record notice of 
the existence of the easement, even though he did not know its exact location. 
Lower Valley accurately argues the result in Mueller is consistent with 
well-established Wyoming law to the effect that statutes are not applied 
retroactively unless retroactivity is expressly provided for in the statute. 
Wyoming Refining Co. v. Bottjen, 695 P.2d 647, 650 (Wyo. 1985); Bemis v. Texaco, 
Inc., 400 P.2d 529, 530, reh'g denied, 401 P.2d 708 (Wyo. 1965).

[¶23]   This case fits comfortably within 
the parameters of Mueller. The easement was executed many years before WYO. 
STAT. § 34-1-141 became effective. Each successive owner, Wanamaker and the 
Edgcombs, took with both actual notice and constructive record notice of the 
easement for the transmission line, and they cannot successfully assert the 
easement is no longer valid. It is valid and enforceable against the Dopyeras' 
successors.

[¶24]   The Edgcombs also contend there was 
error on the part of the district court in granting summary judgment in favor of 
Lower Valley on the Edgcombs' claim for trespass. They argue a genuine issue of 
material fact exists regarding the dimensions of the easement and whether the 
electromagnetic fields generated by the transmission line have an actual impact 
on their property. In RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS ch. 7 at 275 (1965), 
trespasses against real property are defined simply as "invasions of the 
interest in the exclusive possession of land and in its physical condition." An 
easement appropriately is defined as "a nonpossessory interest in land of 
another." BRUCE & ELY ¶ 1.01. We have held "[c]onsent of the possessor or 
another authorized to consent is an absolute defense to trespass." Salisbury 
Livestock Co. v. Colorado Cent. Credit Union, 793 P.2d 470, 475 (Wyo. 1990), 
citing Belluomo v. KAKE TV & Radio, Inc., 3 Kan. App. 2d 461, 596 P.2d 832, 
840 (1979) (quoting Fletcher v. Florida Publishing Co., 319 So. 2d 100, 104 
(Fla.Ct.App. 1975)).

[¶25]   Our holdings above result in the 
possession of a valid easement by Lower Valley. We must approve and affirm the 
trial court's conclusion that "[b]ecause the Defendant has no exclusive 
possessory interest in the property affected by the easement, there cannot, as a 
matter of law, be a trespass," and "[a]dditionally, because there has been no 
actual effect on the property itself, there is no trespass." Consequently, we 
hold the Edgcombs' contention, that the trial court erred in granting summary 
judgment in favor of Lower Valley on the counterclaim of trespass, cannot be 
sustained.

[¶26]   Finally, the Edgcombs contend Lower 
Valley was not entitled to summary judgment on the Edgcombs' counterclaim of 
nuisance. They argue whether the electromagnetic fields related to the 
transmission line are inherently harmful and unreasonably interfere with the use 
and value of their land is an issue that must be reserved for the trier of fact. 
In Hein v. Lee, 549 P.2d 286, 291 (Wyo. 1976), we reaffirmed the definition of 
"nuisance" from Lore v. Town of Douglas, 355 P.2d 367, 370 (Wyo. 1960), where we 
said, "[w]e have adopted a definition of a nuisance as being `a class of wrongs 
which arise from an unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful use by a person of 
his own property, working an obstruction or injury to the right of another.'" 
Lower Valley had a valid easement for a transmission line for electrification 
and telephone purposes, and the scope of the easement has not been exceeded. The 
dimensions are those reasonably convenient or necessary under the circumstances. 
The uses for which the easement is being put are not unreasonable, unwarranted, 
or unlawful and, consequently, they do not constitute a nuisance. The trial 
court did not err when it concluded the operation and maintenance of the line 
does not interfere with the Edgcombs' use of their property. The trial court 
correctly ruled diminution in value of the property alone is not, as a matter of 
law, interference with the use of property.4

[¶27]   We summarize in this way. Lower 
Valley does possess a valid easement providing for a transmission line for 
electrification or telephone purposes, and its use of the property has not 
exceeded the scope of that easement. The dimensions of the easement are, as a 
matter of law, those reasonably convenient or necessary under the circumstances. 
We hold, in supplementation of the trial court's determination, that Lower 
Valley's easement has become fixed and is no longer a floating easement. The 
trial court should enter an amended judgment reflecting that the easement has 
become located and fixed by virtue of the constructed line.

[¶28]   We affirm the trial court's Order 
on Plaintiff's Second Motion for Summary Judgment.

FOOTNOTES

1 In 1981, this statute 
appeared as WYO. STAT. § 16-4-101, with an effective date of May 20, 1981. It 
was renumbered WYO. STAT. § 34-1-141 by 1982 WYO. SESS. LAWS ch. 62, § 
1.

2 The easement shows that 
the 16 is placed over the - (dash) between the 8 and 17 and the 28-29 are placed 
underneath the 5 - 8 - 17 below the line.

3 Enacted in 1981, 
twenty-seven years subsequent to the grant of the easement in 1954, WYO. STAT. § 
34-1-141 (previously WYO. STAT. § 16-4-101) provides:

(a) Except as provided in 
subsection (c) of this section, easements across land executed and recorded 
after the effective date of this act which do not specifically describe the 
location of the easement are null and void and of no force and 
effect.

(b) Except as provided in 
subsection (c) of this section, agreements entered into after the effective date 
of this act which grant the right to locate an easement at a later date and 
which do not specifically describe the location of the easement are null and 
void.

(c) For purposes of this 
act [section] an easement or agreement which does not specifically describe the 
location of the easement or which grants a right to locate an easement at a 
later date shall be valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of 
execution of the easement or agreement. If the specific description is not 
recorded within one (1) year then the easement or agreement shall be of no 
further force and effect.

(d) For purposes of this 
act [section] the specific description required in an easement shall be 
sufficient to locate the easement and is not limited to a survey.

4 The Edgcombs purchased 
the land in question after the lawsuit had been commenced by Wanamaker, and they 
agreed to pursue it until the date of closing and thereafter. It is obvious the 
easement, the presence of the transmission line, or the lawsuit did not deter 
Edgcombs from purchasing.