Title: Hise v. BARC Electric Cooperative

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present:  Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, and 
Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice 
 
BURLEY E. HISE AND  
DARLENE S. HISE 
                                            OPINION BY 
V. Record No. 961577 
SENIOR JUSTICE HENRY H. WHITING 
                                          September 12, 1997 
BARC ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, ET AL. 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BATH COUNTY 
 
Duncan M. Byrd, Jr., Judge 
 
 
In this appeal, we consider the scope of an electric power 
company's rights in an easement in gross for the construction and 
operation of its electric power line acquired (1) by prescription 
and (2) by eminent domain.  Specifically, we decide whether the 
power company can permit a telephone company and a cable 
television company to attach their lines to the power company's 
poles without the consent of the owners of the servient estate. 
 
For a number of years, BARC Electric Cooperative (the power 
company) operated a 7,000 volt electric power line pursuant to an 
alleged 30-foot prescriptive right of way across the property of 
Burley E. Hise and Darlene S. Hise in Bath County.  In an eminent 
domain proceeding, the power company acquired the rights (1) to 
"relocate" its pole line by erecting single pole structures at a 
height not to exceed 60 feet at locations shown on a plat 
attached to its "petition for condemnation" and (2) to widen its 
prescriptive right of way by 50 feet in order to construct and 
operate a new 46,000 volt electric power line over the Hise 
property.  Following that proceeding, the power company installed 
new poles and lines within the original 30-foot easement and 
transferred its original lines to the new poles. 
 
 
 
 
-2- 
 
Since the power company had permitted Virginia Telephone 
Company and Bath Cable TV, Inc., to attach their respective lines 
to the original poles, and the three companies planned to move 
those lines to the power company's new poles, the power company 
did not comply with the Hise request to remove the original poles 
and the telephone and cable lines attached thereto.  Whereupon, 
the Hises brought this action against all three companies to 
compel the removal of the original poles and to enjoin the 
telephone and cable companies from transferring their lines to 
the new poles. 
 
After hearing evidence on the issue of the width of the 
prescriptive easement, the court found it to be 30 feet wide.  
Thereafter, in sustaining motions for summary judgment filed by 
the telephone and cable companies, the court held that they could 
transfer their lines to the power company's new poles pursuant to 
their agreements with the power company.  The court also ordered 
the power company to remove the old poles after such transfer.  
The Hises appeal the first two rulings. 
 
While conceding that the power company had established its 
prescriptive easement over their property, the Hises contend that 
the power company failed to carry its burden of establishing the 
width of its prescriptive easement by clear and convincing 
evidence as required in Pettus v. Keeling, 232 Va. 483, 486, 352 
S.E.2d 321, 324 (1987).  The power company contends that it has 
carried that burden. 
 
 
 
 
-3- 
 
In accordance with well-settled appellate principles, we 
view the evidence in the light most favorable to the power 
company, the prevailing party on this issue of fact.  Such 
evidence indicates that for a period of more than 20 years prior 
to the filing of this suit, the power company periodically 
sprayed and cleared the foliage and undergrowth along its pole 
line, including the Hise property, for a width of at least 30 
feet.  The evidence also discloses that during this period it was 
the usual and customary practice of all power companies, 
including this one, to "make all rural lines thirty feet [wide]." 
 
In our opinion, this evidence sufficiently supports the 
court's finding that the prescriptive right of way was 30 feet 
wide.  Accordingly, we reject this contention of the Hises. 
 
Next, the Hises claim that neither the prescriptive rights 
nor the rights taken in the eminent domain proceeding are 
exclusive or apportionable and therefore the power company had no 
right to authorize the attachment of the telephone and cable 
lines to its new pole lines.  The utility companies disagree. 
 
All parties describe these easements as easements in gross, 
which are "easement[s] with a servient estate but no dominant 
estate."  Corbett v. Ruben, 223 Va. 468, 472, 290 S.E.2d 847, 849 
(1982).  Although personal to the grantee, the easement is 
transferable by the grantee.  Code § 55-6; Corbett, 223 Va. at 
472 n.2, 290 S.E.2d at 849 n.2. 
 
Exclusivity 
 
 
 
 
-4- 
 
"An exclusive easement in gross is one which gives the owner 
the sole privilege of making the uses authorized by it."  5 
Restatement of Property § 493 cmt. c (1944).  If the easement in 
gross is exclusive, the owner of the easement may have the right 
of apportionment which is described as one of "so dividing [an 
easement in gross] as to produce independent uses or operations." 
 Id. at § 493 cmt. a. 
 
In our opinion, the power company's prescriptive right was 
an exclusive right.  The evidence indicates that no use was made 
of the easement by any person or entity other than the power 
company and its permittees, the telephone and cable companies.   
 
We determine the exclusivity of the power company's later 
easement by a consideration of the following pertinent 
descriptions of the rights acquired in the eminent domain 
proceeding: 
 
"(3) The public uses for which the perpetual rights, 
privileges and easement of right of way described in 
this Petition are to be acquired are the construction, 
operation, maintenance and relocation of the Company's 
transmission and distribution line . . . ."  
 
 
* * * * 
 
 
"(6) The estate, interest or rights sought to be 
acquired are the perpetual right, privilege and 
easement of right of way . . . over, under, upon and 
across lands described herein . . . .  
 
 
 
The facilities installed on the easement of right 
of way shall remain the property of the Company.  The 
Company shall have the right to inspect, rebuild, 
remove, repair, improve, relocate such facilities on 
such right of way, and make such changes, alterations, 
substitutions, additions to or extensions of its 
facilities as the Company may from time to time deem 
advisable." 
 
 
 
 
-5- 
 
 
* * * * 
 
 
 
"The owners, their successors and assigns, may use 
the right of way for any purpose not inconsistent with 
the rights herein sought to be condemned including, but 
not limited to, the right to construct, operate and 
maintain . . . telephone, electric or other utility 
lines across the right of way, in such manner that the 
angle between the center line thereof and the center 
line of the right of way shall not be less than forty-
five degrees, provided that such use does not interfere 
with or endanger the construction, operation or 
maintenance of the Company's facilities . . . . The 
Company shall at all times have the paramount right to 
cross or cut through such . . . telephone, electric or 
other utility lines and to interrupt the use thereof, 
for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, 
operating, repairing, altering or replacing its 
facilities . . . "  
 
 
The Hises claim that their right to "use the right of way 
for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights sought to be 
condemned," creates a nonexclusive easement in gross.  We 
disagree.   
 
Nothing in the description of the Hises' rights permits them 
to share the electric company's poles or lines.  Further, any 
utility lines constructed by the Hises or their grantees that 
cross the power company's easement (1) must be at angles of not 
less than 45 degrees with the power company's easement, (2) 
cannot interfere with or endanger the power company's use of the 
easement, and (3) are subject to the power company's paramount 
rights.  In our opinion, none of the Hises' retained rights 
deprived the power company of its "sole privilege of making the 
uses authorized by [the eminent domain proceeding]."  Restatement 
of Property § 493 cmt. c.  Accordingly, we conclude that the 
 
 
 
 
-6- 
power company acquired an exclusive easement in gross in the 
eminent domain proceeding. 
 
Apportionability 
 
"When an easement in gross is created by prescription, the 
question of its apportionability is decided in the light of the 
reasonable expectation of the parties concerned in its creation 
as inferred from the nature of the use by which it was created." 
Id. at § 493 cmt. b.  During the prescriptive period in which the 
power company maintained its pole line across the Hise property, 
it permitted the telephone and cable companies to attach their 
lines to its poles.  Such attachments had been made without 
objection from the Hises for more than 16 years before this 
controversy arose and the Hises have used the cable line for 
television reception to their property since 1979. 
 
We think the attachment of the telephone and cable lines 
demonstrates that the power company construed its prescriptive 
easement as an exclusive one with a right of apportionment.  
Moreover, the Hises apparently acquiesced in that construction 
both by failing to object to the additional lines and by making 
use of one of those lines.  Accordingly, the evidence supports a 
conclusion that the 30-foot prescriptive easement was 
apportionable, thereby giving the power company the right to 
permit the attachment of the telephone and cable lines to its 
poles within that area. 
 
In determining the apportionability of the easement acquired 
 
 
 
 
-7- 
in the eminent domain proceeding, we note that "the fact that 
[the servient tenant] is excluded from making the use authorized 
by the easement, plus the fact that apportionability increases 
the value of the easement to its owner, tends to the inference in 
the usual case that the easement was intended in its creation to 
be apportionable."  Restatement of Property § 493 cmt. c.   
 
The Hises observe that the instrument describing the rights 
acquired in the eminent domain proceeding does not contain the 
broad language contained in the cases relied upon by the utility 
companies in which power company easements in gross were held to 
be apportionable.  However, as pointed out by the utility 
companies, the power company's express power to "improve" and to 
make "additions to or extensions of its facilities" as acquired 
in the eminent domain proceedings sufficiently supports the trial 
court's inference of apportionability in this case.  Accordingly, 
we hold that the power company could permit the television and 
cable companies to attach their lines to the new poles. 
 
For all these reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the 
trial court. 
 
Affirmed.