Opinion ID: 1058916
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusivity and Apportionability

Text: Both parties to this controversy agree that the easement in question is an easement in gross. An easement in gross is an easement 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, an easement in gross is transferable by the grantee. Code § 55-6; United States v. Blackman, 270 Va. 68, 78, 613 S.E.2d 442, 446-47 (2005); Hise v. BARC Elec. Coop., 254 Va. 341, 344, 492 S.E.2d 154, 157 (1997); Corbett, 223 Va. at 472 n. 2, 290 S.E.2d at 849 n. 2. This controversy is over whether Virginia Power's easement is exclusive or non-exclusive. An exclusive easement in gross is one which gives the owner the sole privilege of making the uses authorized by it. 5 Restatement (First) 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. Hise, 254 Va. at 344-45, 492 S.E.2d at 157 (citing 5 Restatement (First) of Property § 493 cmt. a (1944)). On the other hand, a non-exclusive easement in gross is one which does not give, as against the owner of the servient tenement and others who may be privileged under him, the sole privilege of making the use authorized by the easement. . . . Because of this, the apportionability of the easement will not be assumed in the absence of a clear indication to the contrary in the manner or terms of its creation. 5 Restatement (First) of Property § 493 cmt. d (1944). First, we must address Virginia Power's assertions that the trial court erred in considering extrinsic evidence in construing unambiguous language of the deeds creating the easement and in finding that Virginia Power's legal position concerning the proper construction of its easement was of recent origin. While the trial court's letter opinion, incorporated into its final order, does make reference to these matters, the trial court's holding is abundantly clear: This Court holds that the deeds are unambiguous and clearly demonstrate the parties' intention to enter into a non-exclusive easement in gross. Virginia Power's assignments of error regarding the trial court's reference to extrinsic evidence and late arrival at its current position in this litigation are without merit. Virginia Power asserts that the trial court erred in its holding that the easement in gross is non-exclusive and is therefore not apportionable. Virginia Power argues that the trial court's judgment is contrary to our decision in Hise. We disagree. The principles articulated in Hise are applicable to this controversy; however, the cases are factually distinguishable. In Hise, we considered the exclusivity of an easement in gross obtained both by eminent domain and prescription. There, a power company had operated a 7,000 volt power line over the landowner's property based upon rights obtained by prescription. The power company acquired additional rights by eminent domain and sought to erect new poles and transfer lines. The power company had permitted telephone and cable television companies to attach their lines to its poles. Upon the widening of the prescriptive easement, the landowners objected and raised the issue of exclusivity and apportionment of the easement. 254 Va. at 343-44, 492 S.E.2d at 156-57. In holding that the easement in gross was an exclusive right, we examined the description of rights acquired in the eminent domain proceeding as well as the evidence of prescriptive use. We held that the power company's prescriptive rights were exclusive because the evidence proved 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. Id. at 345, 492 S.E.2d at 157. After the condemnation proceeding expanded the easement of the power company, the Hises maintained that the right to use the right of way for any purpose not inconsistent with the rights sought to be condemned, which they retained in the condemnation proceeding, rendered the power company's easement non-exclusive. Id. at 346, 492 S.E.2d at 158. Upon careful consideration of the language used, we disagreed: 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 power company acquired an exclusive easement in gross in the eminent domain proceeding. Id. Just as we examined the particular language used in the eminent domain proceeding in Hise, we must examine the language used in the deeds in this case and the circumstances of the parties at that time. As we have stated: The facts and circumstances surrounding the parties when they made the contract, and the purposes for which it was made, may be taken into consideration as an aid to the interpretation of the words used, but not to put a construction on the words the parties have used which they do not properly bear. Seaboard Air Line R.R. Co. v. Richmond-Petersburg Turnpike Auth., 202 Va. 1029, 1033, 121 S.E.2d 499, 503 (1961); see also Flippo v. CSC Assocs. III, L.L.C., 262 Va. 48, 64, 547 S.E.2d 216, 226 (2001). When the Trail was owned by the W & OD Railroad, it was used for telecommunications purposes by third parties. C & P Telephone had an agreement to use the property for its wires and structures since at least 1959. AT & T was granted licenses by the railroad to install telecommunications lines in 1965 and 1966. In 1962, Virginia Power acquired an easement to use the property for power lines. When Virginia Power purchased the fee interest in the property from the railroad, the conveyance was made subject to all existing recorded covenants, restrictions, easements, leases, permits, licenses and existing physical encroachments or any possible rights of third parties. At the time of the conveyance, there were numerous above-ground telephone lines on the property. Virginia Power obtained its fee interest encumbered by this existing utility usage by third parties. During the 10 years that Virginia Power owned the fee interest, it granted additional communications licenses and easements to third parties. When Virginia Power sold its fee interest to the Park Authority in 1978, the various deeds were made subject to all existing covenants, restrictions, easements, leases, permits and licenses which affect the property . . . . Additionally, Virginia Power retained a utility easement in its deed to the Park Authority. Virginia Power conveyed a large number of pre-existing licenses and leases to the Park Authority as a part of the transaction. As such, the pre-existing licenses and leases encumbered both the fee conveyed to the Park Authority and the easement retained by Virginia Power. The record reveals that upon transfer of the fee interest from Virginia Power to the Park Authority with the retaining of Virginia Power's easement all subject to the use of pre-existing licenses and leases of third parties, the telecommunications usage was not exclusive to Virginia Power. The language of the Option Agreement repeated in the deeds demonstrates the non-exclusive nature of Virginia Power's telecommunications easement. While Virginia Power reserved all [of] its electrical facilities, it also reserved to itself and its successors, but not to its assigns, the following: [T]he perpetual right, privilege and easement of right of way to lay, construct, operate and maintain one or more lines of poles, towers, structures, cables, conduits, pipes and mains, together with all wires, manholes, handholes, valves, regulators, meters, attachments, equipment, accessories and appurtenances desirable in connection therewith (hereinafter referred to as facilities), for the purpose of transmitting or distributing electric power, for the purpose of transporting natural gas, oil, petroleum products or any other liquids, gases or substances which can be transported through a pipe line, and for communication purposes, over, under, upon and across the lands hereby conveyed. Such reservation is specifically limited by the following: It is agreed . . . that all references to [Virginia Power] and the Authority shall include their respective successors, and that all obligations hereunder shall also bind any assignees of the Authority. The deeds explicitly recognize the Park Authority's right to assign in the following provision: The Authority shall not permit, assign or grant to any other party any easements, rights, privileges or encroachments of any nature on the property hereby conveyed without the prior written approval of [Virginia Power], provided such approval shall not be withheld unreasonably. On appeal, Virginia Power makes much of the argument that successors means assigns. We need not address such an argument because it is not dispositive of the issue. The issue is whether Virginia Power has an exclusive easement in gross. The clear language permitting the Park Authority to grant third party easements of any nature subject to approval by Virginia Power, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, demonstrates the non-exclusivity of Virginia Power's easement. Upon review of the record, we hold that the language of the deeds in question is not ambiguous and provides Virginia Power a non-exclusive easement in gross. Accordingly, Virginia Power does not have the right to apportion its easement to third parties. It is unnecessary to address the Park Authority's assignments of cross-error. We will affirm the judgment of the trial court. Affirmed.