Daily Development for Thursday, February 16,
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
EASEMENTS; RIGHTS OF SERVIENT OWNERS: : Where owner of a pipeline easement has an express right to “inspect” the pipeline, but has tolerated trees growing withing the easement for more than 40 years without objection, the pipeline easement owner may not remove the trees to facilitate its ariel inspection of the pipeline unless it can demonstrate that it has no other way to make reasonable use of its easement rights.
Township of Piscataway v. Duke Energy, 389 F.Supp.2d 607 (D. N.J. 2005); September 20, 2005.
A pipeline company and its predecessors held easements to run three pipelines through a neighborhood, on municipal property. The easements gave the pipeline company "the express power to, inter alia 'operate,' 'inspect,' and 'maintain' the pipelines."
With the knowledge of the pipeline company and its predecessors, and without objection, about eighty trees had been planted forty years earlier along the easement. When the pipeline company notified the municipality and various homeowners that it would be "removing trees, limbs, and foliage from the area of the easement," the municipality and the neighbors objected.
The company and its predecessors had never before asserted a legal right to remove the trees. By consent order, five trees were removed. A law suit made its way to federal court where the pipeline company argued that it was "necessary to remove the trees in order gain access to the pipelines in the event of emergency. [The pipeline company] posit[ed] that the trees may be in the way of a vehicle getting to a particular location or a tree trunk/root may be in the way of access to a damaged part of the pipeline."
Further, the pipeline company utilized arial surveillance "to observe the property under which its pipelines lay. If the surrounding vegetation looks 'distressed,' it [was] a signal that the pipeline may have a leak." The pipeline company also routinely surveyed the pipeline route by vehicle, but argued that arial surveillance was the most effective and least intrusive means to do a proper inspection. There was no evidence, however, that airplanes could not see through the tree's branches and the pipeline company "proffer[ed] no facts to demonstrate that land surveillance, in combination with the warning signs against construction on [the parallel road] (required by law) and the [municipality's] ability to regulate construction on its property, [was] ineffective to give [the pipeline company] notice regarding safety and maintenance of the pipelines."
Although the pipeline company argued that with the trees in place, it could not enjoy its "rights under the Easement 'to operate,' 'inspect,' or 'maintain' the pipelines unless all of the trees" were removed, it could "point to no particular tree or trees removal that might alleviate [its] concern." It couldn't show that other methods of enjoying its easement rights were ineffective. The Court was particularly comforted that there was no evidence "as to why [it had] suddenly become necessary to remove [the trees] in order to enjoy the easement's terms." It pointed out that the pipeline company and its predecessors "[had] complied with the law and exercised safety precautions for forty years since the pipelines were installed and the trees planted." Consequently, it was difficult for the pipeline company "to assert 'reasonable necessity' to fundamentally alter a servient estate where years were allowed to pass under the status quo with no complaint regarding enjoyment of the ea
As a result, the Court barred the pipeline company from removing all of the trees, holding that "[t]here must be real facts to support the safety argument before [there could be a] fundamental alteration of [the street's] environment, destruction of the ecology, and reduction in [the municipality's and the neighbor's] property values." The Court believed that "[a]s the trees [were] decades old, they [were] essentially irreplaceable."
On the other hand, the Court pointed out that the municipality and the neighbors were "now on notice that these trees could, in the future, present a demonstrable safety risk sufficient to justify removal." Nevertheless, it insisted that the pipeline company "must first attempt to enjoy [its] easement rights in ways besides the one that [it] find[s] most convenient to [it], ..., and must present the requisite evidence of reasonable necessity for enjoyment of the Easement's terms."
Further, the Court believed that the doctrine of laches would also have barred the pipeline company's claim, absent extrinsic circumstances. The pipeline company did not dispute that it, or its predecessors-in-title, "knew that trees would be planted over the pipelines as part of [a] residential development and that [they] did not object to the planting of the trees." Instead, the pipeline company waited "nearly forty years to assert an alleged necessity to cut down trees." Because of the length of the delay and the lack of justification or any "evidence regarding changed circumstances," the Court found the pipeline company's delay inexcusable and prejudicial to the municipality and the neighbors.
Comment 1: Note that in this case we are not faced with the dominant holder seeking enforcement of the easement through injunction, but rather the servient owner seeking such protection. This is an easement owner trying to make use of its rights and being stopped by the servients. Thus, what we really have necessarily is a construction of the easement itself (perhaps as modified by laches or waiver.)
Comment 2: The editor suspects that the history of usage does little more than define what constitutes “necessary” inspection and maintenance operations. But does this mean that the owner of the easement can’t respond to newer economic realities or technological realities? Why not?
Comment 3: Most likely, the court is just being Solomonic here, hoping that the parties themselves will provide an adequate answer to the problem. The pipeline owner had the right, but perhaps through making things a little more difficult for the owner, it will come to a more palatable resolution of the problem of inspection and maintenance.
Items reported here and in the ABA publications
are for general information purposes only and
should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions in
legal matters. The same is true of all
commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT
list. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed
are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor
and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day.
subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:
for information on other commands, send the
Help to the listserv address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find
this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the
residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you
subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as
BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
DIRT is a service of the American Bar
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
To be removed from this mailing list, please go to
or send an email message to the address email@example.com,
with the text SIGNOFF FINANCE in the body of the message. Problems
or questions should be directed to firstname.lastname@example.org.