Opinion ID: 1119493
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: IF (AS DRABEK CLAIMS) DePLANCHE OWNS THE DOMINANT ESTATE IN THE REAL PROPERTY BURDENED BY THE EASEMENT IN ISSUE, SHE IS A NECESSARY PARTY DEFENDANT IN COMPANY'S SUIT TO DECLARE THE EASEMENT'S VALIDITY AND ITS BREADTH

Text: When crafting equitable relief, the trial judge may not ignore the law's clear command. Equity follows the law. [7] Extant jurisprudence teaches, and due process requires, that before anyone's rights in real property may be affected in a judicial proceeding, that individual must be joined as a party defendant in the suit. [8] Here, the trial court concerned itself with the issues (1) whether a pipeline easement ceased being efficacious because it had been abandoned and (2) whether company's proposed use of existing pipelines (on the property in question) as a conduit for installing fiber optic telephone cable was within or dehors the scope of its easement. If DePlanche, as conceded below, holds the dominant estate, both of these issues clearly affect her rights in the land. She is hence to be regarded as a necessary party defendant in company's suit.