The court judge sided with the landowners and limited the company`s use of the easement to 30`, as that was the width of the previous use. The company appealed. The company argued that this case was not mature, with landowners not claiming any proposed measures or measures of the company preventing them from using their own property. The landowners argued that their rights were mature, given that the company`s position that their easement is unlimited allows the company to assert trespassing rights at any time and that landowners would effectively be denied full use of their property due to the uncertainty surrounding the documents created by the company`s position. The 1949 deed granting a general easement, but the width of which was not specified, the company was “authorized to use as much of the [landowner`s] property as is reasonably necessary, while charging it as little as possible.” The court decided that it was 30′. The Tribunal dismissed other previous decisions on which the company relied on which the easement agreements allowed for the laying of additional lines in the future, and a case in which the easement agreement explicitly allowed the line to be “relocated”. Instead, the court stated that “in a general easement, once the place of servitude is chosen by the fellow, his rights then become firm and secure.” Once the company built and maintained its transmission lines, its rights were defined and secured. The court sided with the landowners and found that there was a fair controversy. Since the company could at any time choose to follow the application of its interpretation of the deed and that a greater easement could affect the use of the landowner`s land, it was ripe to make a decision. YCWA must have performed the Narrows Primary Transmission Line Easement (unless the easement is created by a reserve in the deed). In 2014, the company began rebuilding and modernizing transmission lines and replaced wooden pylons with steel. When this began, the company sent a letter to landowners along the line informing them of the planned modernization of the line and offering each $1,000 in exchange for adding the existing easement and revising and clarifying the width and boundaries of the 1949 easements.
Although the initial transports remained silent in terms of width, the amendment would have expressly included a width of 100′. First, landowners should carefully read, verify and receive legal assistance when negotiating an easement agreement. By including a width restriction in the original 1949 agreements, the parties as a whole could have avoided this dispute. Second, the starting point for any easement analysis is the language of the document itself. It was found that, in this case, the language adequately limits the width to that previously used….