Opinion ID: 2285423
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the rights and privileges granted under the severance deed entitled appellants to summary judgment

Text: Since we have affirmed the Court of Appeals upon the jury trial issue, Appellants ask us to address the argument that the trial court erred by failing to grant summary judgment dismissing Appellees' claims of trespass, on the grounds that Appellants' use of the road was authorized by, and in accordance with, the Severance Deed. As further explained below, we conclude that there are no genuine issues of material fact concerning Appellants' disputed use of the road in its coal operations, [6] and that the sole issue remaining is therefore one of deed construction. The nature and extent of Appellants' actual use of the road is not disputed. As further explained below, by our interpretation, Appellants' use of the road is authorized by the rights and privileges granted to them under the Severance Deed. Pursuant to the language of the deed, Appellants are entitled to transport coal mined from non-adjacent tracts across the coal-haul road to the Davidson Branch facility; to move materials across the road to supply the facility; and to transport refuse from the facility. We therefore conclude that Appellants were entitled to summary judgment upon the issue, and remand for entry of an order dismissing Appellees' claims with prejudice. The general rule under CR 56.03 is that a denial of a motion for summary judgment is, first, not appealable because of its interlocutory nature and, second, is not reviewable on appeal from a final judgment where the question is whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact. Transportation Cabinet, Bureau of Highways, Com. of Ky. v. Leneave, 751 S.W.2d 36, 37 (Ky.App.1988). There is, however, an exception to this rule that applies where: (1) the facts are not in dispute, (2) the only basis of the ruling is a matter of law, (3) there is a denial of the motion, and (4) there is an entry of a final judgment with an appeal therefrom. Id. Because requirements for the foregoing exception to the general rule are met in this case, we choose to, as the parties have requested, review the trial court's denial of Appellants' motion for summary judgment. In support of its position that it was entitled to summary judgment based upon construction of the Severance Deed, Appellants cite us to the following language from the deed: [The grantor does hereby sell and convey unto the grantee].... the exclusive rights-of-way for any and all Railroads and ways and pipelines that may hereafter be located on said property by the Grantee, its successors or assigns, under authority of said Grantee, or assigns, in, under, concerning or appurtenant to the hereinafter described tract of land, together with the right to enter upon said lands, use and operate the same, and surface thereof and to make use of and for this purpose divert water courses thereon in any and every manner that might be deemed necessary or convenient for mining and removing therefrom, or otherwise utilizing the product of said minerals, and for the transportation therefrom of said articles, and the right to use of such, as well as for the removal of the products taken out of any other land owned or hereafter acquired by the Grantee. (emphasis added). We first note that, [t]he construction and interpretation of a contract, including questions regarding ambiguity, are questions of law to be decided by the court. First Commonwealth Bank of Prestonsburg v. West, 55 S.W.3d 829, 835 (Ky.App.2000). Accordingly, our review on appeal is de novo, without deference to the trial court's legal conclusions. Id.; see also Spot-A-Pot, Inc. v. State Resources Corp., 278 S.W.3d 158, 161 (Ky.App.2009). `[I]n the absence of ambiguity a written instrument will be enforced strictly according to its terms,' and a court will interpret the contract's terms by assigning language its ordinary meaning and without resort to extrinsic evidence. Frear v. P.T.A. Industries, Inc., 103 S.W.3d 99, 106 (Ky. 2003) (citations omitted). A contract is ambiguous if a reasonable person would find it susceptible to different or inconsistent interpretations. Cantrell Supply, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 94 S.W.3d 381, 385 (Ky.App.2002) (citation omitted). We further note these additional general principles that are applicable to the Severance Deed: In the absence of further rights expressly conveyed or reserved, the surface rights of a mineral owner are limited to so much of the surface and such uses thereof as are reasonably necessary properly to mine and carry away the minerals. Where the grantee of minerals owns adjoining land through or over which it is practicable for the grantee to mine and remove the minerals granted, the grantee is not entitled to use the surface over the minerals for mining purposes because it is more convenient for the grantee. . . . . A mineral owner may not use the surface owned by the grantor in producing, marketing, or in any way handling the mineral produced on other or adjacent lands, unless and except to the extent that such rights may be given by the grant. Thus, a mineral owner generally has no right to use the surface of one tract to aid in the mining of another tract, even though such owner owns the minerals under both. . . . . Surface rights incident to mining may be expressly granted in the conveyance of the mineral rights. Where specified surface rights are expressly granted or reserved in connection with the mineral rights, the intention of the parties, as determined by the general rules of construction, govern in determining the extent of the mineral owner's rights and liability for compensation for the use of the surface. Where certain surface rights are specifically granted, the court may not add to such enumerated rights other rights not specifically set forth in the conveyance. 58 C.J.S. Mines and Minerals § 214 (2009) (footnotes omitted). Moreover, [u]nder a deed such as this, the grantee may make a reasonable use of all of the rights conferred upon it by the terms of the deed without incurring liability for damages, but it may make no use of the surface that is unauthorized without being responsible therefor. Pike-Floyd Coal Co. v. Nunnery, 232 Ky. 805, 24 S.W.2d 614, 615 (1929). Further, a severance deed should be construed most strongly against grantors in such deeds, and in favor of the grantees. But the rule can be invoked only when there is an ambiguity in the deed. Id. (citations omitted). Upon examination of the applicable provisions of the deed, we conclude that Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Consol of Kentucky, Inc., 15 S.W.3d 727 (Ky. 2000), is dispositive. In Columbia Gas, we construed the following language contained in a 1903 coal severance deed: [The grantor conveys to the grantee] the exclusive rights-of-way for any and all railroads, tram roads, haul roads and other ways, pipe lines, telephone and telegraph lines that may hereafter be located on said land by the parties of the first part, their heirs, representatives or assigns, or by the party of the second part, its successors or assigns, or by any person or corporation with or without the authority of either of said parties, their, or its, heirs, representatives, successors or assigns.... Id. at 729 (emphasis added). In Columbia Gas, we noted that this language was typical of broad form deeds, [7] commonly known as Northern form deeds, used at the time. The operative language of the Columbia Gas deed reads: [The grantor conveys to the grantee] the exclusive rights-of-way for any and all railroads, tram roads, haul roads and other ways. ... Comparison with the deed under present consideration discloses that the language is virtually identical: [The grantor does hereby sell and convey unto the grantee] ... the exclusive rights-of-way for any and all Railroads and ways .... [8] While there are slight wording differences between the two deeds, as relevant to our review, the important point is that both conveyed exclusive rights-of-way for any and all ... ways. Thus, the deed language analyzed in Columbia Gas is functionally indistinguishable from the language in the Severance Deed before us. As explained in Columbia Gas, this broad form language grants the mineral holder full easement-granting power with respect to the surface estate, which is tantamount to complete ownership of the surface as concerns right-of-way uses[.] Id. at 729-730. Our full analysis upon the point was as follows: Citing Harry Caudill, Theirs Be the Power: The Moguls of Eastern Kentucky (U. of Ill. Press 1983) and Carolyn Clay Turner and Carolyn Hay Traum, John C.C. Mayo Cumberland Capitalist (Pikeville College Press 1983), Appellant asserts that Northern Coal and Coke Company used its Northern form of deed to acquire mineral interests in hundreds of thousands of acres of land in eastern Kentucky. On three occasions, our predecessor court was called upon to interpret the meaning of the so-called easement-granting clause quoted above. On each occasion, the clause was held to convey to the grantee of the mineral estate the easement-granting power with respect to the surface estate. In Cornett v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 298 Ky. 95, 182 S.W.2d 230 (1944), the owner of the surface estate sought to enjoin the grantee of a Northern form deed from granting an easement to a railroad company for the construction of a commercial railroad line across the surface of the property. The surface owner asserted that the easement-granting clause only pertained to easements appurtenant to the mineral estate, i.e., those easements necessary for the mining and removal of coal or other minerals from beneath the surface of the property. The Court held that the easement-granting clause contained no such restriction and that the owner of the mineral estate possessed the sole power to grant a railroad right-of-way easement across the surface estate. In Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Quillen, Ky., 242 S.W.2d 95 (1951), the railroad sought to condemn a right-of-way across property severed by a Northern form deed. The issue was whether the condemnation proceeds were payable to the surface owner or to the owner of the mineral estate. It was held that the owner of the mineral estate, as owner of the easement-granting power, was entitled to the proceeds. (During the pendency of the litigation, the railroad purchased the right-of-way from the holder of the mineral estate, so the upshot was that the railroad was entitled to repayment of the condemnation proceeds which it had previously paid into court.) In Elk Horn Coal Corp. v. Kentucky-West Virginia Gas Co., Ky., 317 S.W.2d 472 (1957), the issue was whether the owner of the mineral rights to forty-eight separate tracts of land could enjoin the construction of a pipeline across the surface of those tracts. The plaintiff had acquired its interest in some of the tracts by Northern form deeds and in others by deeds which did not contain an easement-granting clause. The plaintiff was held entitled to relief with respect to the tracts acquired by Northern form deeds, but not with respect to tracts acquired by other forms of deed. The opinion had this to say about the easement-granting clause in the Northern form deeds: The Cornett and Quillen cases clearly uphold the claim of the coal corporation here that the mineral deeds gave it complete control over rights of way, and negative the contention of the gas company that the mineral deeds conveyed only appurtenant easements. .... The simple answer to this argument is, that the deed did not purport to convey an easement, but rather ownership of the surface as concerned future grants of easements. The grantee did not receive a mere easement, but the easement-granting power. .... As hereinbefore indicated in this opinion, we think the coal corporation had complete ownership of the surface as concerns right of way uses, and was not limited to appurtenant easements.... Id. at 475, 476 (emphasis in original). Id. at 729-730. As demonstrated by the above discussion, because the Severance Deed was a broad form, Northern deed, the grantee (Appellants' predecessor in interest) was conveyed under the deed ownership of the easement-granting power with respect to the surface estate of the Appellees' tracts. This interpretation comports well with the Severance Deed's plain language. A right of way is defined as [t]he right to pass through property owned by another. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004); 25 Am. Jur.2d., Easements and Licenses, § 5 (2010). See also Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. Leggett, 307 S.W.3d 109, 115 (Ky.2010). The Severance Deed conveyed the original grantee exclusive rights of passage for any and all (which is self-defining) ways. A way, as used here, is defined as 1. A passage or path. 2. A right to travel over another's property. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.2004). Thus, by its plain language, the deed conveyed to the original grantee the exclusive right to pass across the Knight tracts for any and all purposes. The language of the deed conveying any and all rights of way must be construed to mean what it says: any and all rights of way. It follows that it was within the power of the successors in interest to that right, Appellants, to grant themselves an easement for the purpose of transporting coal mined from non-adjacent tracts across the surface to the tipple; transporting supplies to the tipple; and transporting refuse back out of the tipple. In summary, based upon our interpretation of the Severance Deed as discussed above, Appellants were entitled to summary judgment upon their defense that the deed language granted them the right to use the coal haul road consistently with their past and current practices.