Opinion ID: 4159997
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interpretation of the 1969 Easement

Text: ¶26 The Garzas argue that ATC does not have the right to enter their property to trim or remove the trees threatening or endangering the operation of the transmission line because the change from wood poles to steel poles invalidated the easement. 10 A deed of easement is a document that contains the terms of a written easement. 10 Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279 They base their argument on language within the 1969 easement referring to wood pole structures. The Garzas claim the entire 1969 easement is premised on the right to construct a transmission line on wood poles. Accordingly, without a transmission line constructed on wood poles, the 1969 easement and the rights granted in connection with that transmission line cease to exist. Thus, the Garzas argue, the 1969 easement is invalid and ATC no longer has the right to enter the Garzas' property. ¶27 ATC, on the other hand, argues that to interpret the language comprising wood pole structures so as to proscribe other materials from being used in the structure is to read that phrase out of context and preclude evaluation of the 1969 easement as a whole. ATC further argues that replacing the wood poles with steel poles is permitted under the implied term contained in every easement that the dominant estate holder may do what is reasonably necessary to continue enjoying the right to use granted under a deed of easement. Thus, ATC argues the change from wood poles to steel poles did not invalidate the 1969 easement and, with the 1969 easement still in place, ATC has the right to enter the Garzas' property to trim and remove the trees threatening or endangering the operation of the transmission line. ¶28 We agree with ATC. 1. An Easement Allows for Advances in Technology and Reasonable Implementation of Such Advances Does Nothing to Extinguish the Rights Granted Therein 11 Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279 ¶29 We have long recognized that, implied in every easement, unless otherwise stated, is the right of the dominant estate to do what is reasonably necessary to enjoy the easement. Scheeler v. Dewerd, 256 Wis. 428, 41 N.W.2d 635 (1950) (allowing the parties to upgrade well facilities from a hand pump to modern plumbing equipment); see also McDonnell v. Sheets, 15 N.W.2d 252, 255 (Iowa 1944) (allowing a dominant estate holder to use an easement for ingress and egress as a driveway for automobiles when the easement stated team and wagon). The Restatement (Third) of Property describes the right to use as follows: Except as limited by the terms of the servitude determined under § 4.1, the holder of an easement or profit as defined in § 1.2 is entitled to use the servient estate in a manner that is reasonably necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the servitude. The manner, frequency, and intensity of the use may change over time to take advantage of developments in technology and to accommodate normal development of the dominant estate or enterprise benefited by the servitude. Unless authorized by the terms of the servitude, the holder is not entitled to cause unreasonable damage to the servient estate or interfere unreasonably with its enjoyment. Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 4.10 (Am. Law Inst. 2000) (emphasis added). ¶30 We conclude that the change from wood to steel poles was a reasonable change made in order to take advantage of developments in technology. The authorization from the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin (PSCW) noted that the changes made to the transmission line in 1995 would be an upgrade that would allow electric distribution system improvements to occur 12 Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279 and noted that the old lines were incapable of providing the electricity needed in the area. ¶31 Although the holder of a dominant estate may take advantage of advances in technology to make more full or convenient use of the right(s) granted within the easement, the dominant estate's ability to take advantage of advances in technology is not unlimited. The dominant estate may not cause unreasonable damage to the servient estate or interfere unreasonably with its enjoyment. Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 4.10. Thus, any changes in the dominant estate's use may not place an undue burden on the servient estate. See Hunter, 78 Wis. 2d at 344 (The dominant owner's . . . interest is not an estate in land, but rather a right to use the land of another for a special purpose not inconsistent with the general property in the owner.). A change in use that places such a burden on the servient estate is outside the scope of the dominant estate's right to use. See Grygiel, 328 Wis. 2d 436, ¶34. ¶32 The change from wood to steel placed no undue burden on the servient estate. It is undisputed that steel poles can support more weight than wood poles and allow for longer spans between poles. This means fewer poles are needed to support the upgraded transmission line, and the Garzas have failed to show how the placement of fewer supporting structures——regardless of what they are constructed of——along the route of the easement places more of a burden on the servient estate because there are fewer of them. See id., ¶23 (quoting Millen v. Thomas, 201 13 Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279 Wis. 2d 675, 683-85, 550 N.W.2d 134 (Ct. App. 1996)). The steel poles were also constructed within the boundary established by the 1969 easement, which means the steel poles do not occupy any additional space. Accordingly, no showing has been made that an undue burden was placed on the servient estate. 2. The Significance of the Phrase Comprising Wood Pole Structures ¶33 Nevertheless, the Garzas argue that the language of the 1969 easement expressly forecloses ATC from installing steel poles because the 1969 easement refers to the transmission line as comprising wood pole structures. However, we conclude that this language places no limitation on ATC's right to take advantage of reasonable advances in technology because comprising wood pole structures is language of description, not circumscription. ¶34 At the beginning of the easement, the context suggests the parties intention that the 1969 easement be for the purpose of constructing and operating a transmission line: Notably, the 1969 easement is titled Transmission Line Easement (and not, for example, Easement for the Construction of Wood Pole Structures), and the first right granted in the 1969 easement is the right to erect, maintain and operate an electric transmission line. The language within the easement is reflective of the parties' intent that the 1969 easement be for the construction and operation of a transmission line. There is no indication that the parties intended to place any sort of limitation on either the construction material or on the 14 Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279 dominant estate holder's right to erect, maintain and operate an electric transmission line. ¶35 The 1969 easement goes on to grant to the Grantee, its successors and assigns the right to, from time to time determine, the type of conductors, wires, etc. to be used for transmitting electric current over and across the property. Furthermore, the easement grants the right to enter the property for the purpose of erecting said line, and changing, repairing, patrol[l]ing, replacing and removing the same, and the right to do any and all other acts necessary in the proper erection, maintenance, safeguarding, and operation of said line. ¶36 Read as a whole,11 this language reflects an intention on the part of the parties to the 1969 easement to grant the dominant estate holder the ability to construct and operate a transmission line. Additional terms touch upon such concepts as changing and replacing that indicate that the parties intended the dominant estate holder to have the ability to change its use in a way that allows for the continued operation of the transmission line. Cf. Wis. Pub. Serv. Corp. v. Andrews, 2009 WI App 30, ¶12, 316 Wis. 2d 734, 766 N.W.2d 232 (interpreting reconstruct to allow the dominant estate holder to upgrade a transmission line from 161 kV to 345 kV). ¶37 In addition, the 1969 easement allows the dominant estate holder discretion to determine how the transmission line 11 See Borek Cranberry Marsh, Inc. v. Jackson County, 2010 WI 95, ¶¶31-32, 328 Wis. 2d 613, 785 N.W.2d 615. 15 Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279 should be constructed. The 1969 easement starts with the following grant of rights: [T]he perpetual right, privilege and easement to erect, maintain and operate an electric transmission line, comprising wood pole structures conductors and other wires, counterpoises, guy wires, braces and other usual appendages and appurtenances of such kind as said Grantee, its successors and assigns, may from time to time determine, for transmitting electric current over and across [the property]. But, it does not end there. The parties also included a right in the 1969 easement that grants discretion to the dominant estate to determine what is necessary in the proper erection, maintenance, safeguarding, and operation of said line. Perhaps most tellingly, what the parties did not include was a provision requiring that the transmission line be limited to being placed on a wood pole structure. See Atkinson v. Mentzel, 211 Wis. 2d 628, 638-39, 566 N.W.2d 158 (Ct. App. 1997) (limiting the uses granted in an easement to anything other than retail sales because the easement granted access for all uses of said property other than retail sales). ¶38 It is true that the right to erect, maintain and operate an electric transmission line is followed by the language comprising wood pole structures. However, we must read comprising wood pole structures within the context described above, which indicates that the parties did not intend to limit the transmission line to a wood pole structure. See Borek, 328 Wis. 2d 613, ¶¶31-32 (using the easement's title—— Easement for Flowage Rights——and other language contained in 16 Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279 the deed of easement to interpret the meaning of heirs and assigns). We will not take comprising wood pole structures to place a limit on the dominant estate holder's right to use the servient estate for a transmission line when the entirety of the 1969 easement indicates there is no such limit: the title of the 1969 easement (Transmission Line Easement), the language of the first right granted to the dominant estate holder, and the additional rights granted to the dominant estate to, inter alia, change and replace the transmission line and to take actions considered necessary for the operation of the transmission line indicate the dominant estate holder has flexibility in its right to use the servient estate for the transmission line. 3. The Present Use Is Consistent with the Purpose of the 1969 Easement ¶39 The use of the easement must be in accordance with and confined to the terms and purposes of the grant. Hunter, 78 Wis. 2d at 343; see also Grygiel, 328 Wis. 2d 436, ¶36 (interpreting a deed of easement for ingress and egress consistently with the purpose for which the easement was granted——access to the defendant's property). In this case, the purpose of the 1969 easement is to transmit electricity. Therefore, elevating the phrase comprising wood pole structures to the status of a limitation on the dominant estate's ability to operate the transmission line would be inconsistent with the underlying purpose of the 1969 easement, namely to transmit electricity. See AKG Real Estate, LLC v. 17 Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279 Kosterman, 2006 WI 106, ¶¶23-24, 296 Wis. 2d 1, 717 N.W.2d 835 (refusing to allow the width of an easement for ingress and egress to determine that the easement's purpose was for building a public road because the easement width (66 feet) was the exact width needed to build a public road). ¶40 Interpreting the 1969 easement to permit the use of other materials such as steel is consistent with the 1969 easement's purpose to transmit electricity because, as the PSCW recognized when it approved the application to upgrade the transmission line, transmission of the necessary voltage of electric current using the original transmission line on the original structure was no longer feasible. 4. The PSCW Authorization ¶41 As an alternative argument, the Garzas argue that Point 33 of the PSCW's authorization to upgrade the transmission line terminated the 1969 easement. Point 33 states: That WEPCO and WPS shall remove the wires and structures of all existing 34 kV, 46 kV, 69 kV, and 115 kV lines retired or taken out of operation as part of this project, and properly backfill all holes where structures are removed. Easements for rights-of-way of removed lines shall be terminated, forfeiting all rights to the landowners. Like the circuit court, we conclude this argument is unavailing. As the circuit court said, it is clear that paragraph 33 only terminates the easements where the entire installation was removed, not where a new facility was installed replacing the old. It would be nonsensical to find that the PSCW was ordering easements to be terminated where it was simultaneously ordering new facilities to be constructed. 18 Nos. 2014AP2278 & 2014AP2279 When read in the context of the rest of the PSCW's 1994 authorization, it is therefore clear that the PSCW did not intend to terminate rights-of-way for transmission lines being replaced but, rather, intended only to terminate rights-of-way for transmission lines that were being removed and not replaced. The rights of ATC under the terms of the 1969 easement are unaffected by this term. 5. Visual Blight ¶42 The Garzas also claim that the transmission line causes visual blight; however, we decline to address this argument because it was not properly developed and argued.12 See State v. Gulrud, 140 Wis. 2d 721, 730, 412 N.W.2d 139 (Ct. App. 1987) (declining to address an argument because the defendant did not explain his contention or develop his argument).