Daily Development for Monday, October 21,
2007
by:
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC
School of
Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City,
Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu
NUISANCE; STANDING: A neighboring
landowner has
standing to assert that a dominant tenant/pipeline company is
causing a
nuisance by cutting down trees over a pipeline easement in a public road
even
after that tenant has obtained the consent of the servient
owner/township.
Township of Piscataway v. Duke Energy, 488
F.3d 203
(3rd Cir. 2007)
A group of homeowners initiated litigation to
prevent a
utility company from removing fifty shade trees planted along a public
street in
a municipality.
Predecessors in title to the homeowners in
the
lawsuit had in 1944 granted a utility company and its successors an
easement to
lay, operate, and maintain natural gas pipelines. The area of the
easement
was apparently not limited - the pipes could be laid anywhere across the
servient tract. The pipeline easement grants (there were several)
indicated that
the company would bury the pipelines at a sufficient depth not
to interfere
with cultivation of soil and that it would pay for any damages
to growing
crops, timber resulting from maintenance and operation of
the
lines.
Later, subsequent
owners of
the servient tract desired to develop it into homesites. In 1963,
they
granted a third easement to the pipeline company for another line, but
also
narrowed the easements to a sixty foot wide right of way.
Apparently this
sixty foot strip then was conveyed to the local township for the
creation of a
public street above the pipelines. Thus the pipeline
easement area
became a long public street.
Along the edge of the street were a
large
number of shade trees, some as high as seventy five feet.
Homeowners of
the residences built thereafter on the balance of the original tract
came to
view the trees as extensions of their front yards. But it should be
emphasized
that, according to the court, the land on which the trees were located
belonged
to the municipality.
The pipeline company originally had
sought the
removal of eighty trees along the street. It argued that it
was
difficult to monitor the pipeline for leaks because the trees impeded
the
company from aerially surveying the area to look for evidence of gas
leaks,
usually disclosed by discolored or dying plant life. Further, the
company
argued that the coating that it had used on the pipes originally was
susceptible
to injury from the tree roots.
A lawsuit ensued, in which both
the
township and neighbors joined to prevent the removal of the trees.
They
obtained a preliminary injunction preventing the removal of the
trees. The
case was removed to federal court, which refused to remove the
preliminary
injunction pending a trial of the facts.
Before
trial,
however, the township and the company settled the case and agreed to the
removal
of fifty-five trees and the future removal of any trees that exceeded
eight
inches in diameter.
The neighboring landowners, however,
viewed the
trees as adding important aesthetic value to their properties, and
continued the
lawsuit. The company challenged their standing to continue in the
lawsuit
without the township. The trial court found that the neighbors had
no
right to raise the claim of trespass (note the trees were not on the
neighbors
land), but held that the neighbors had standing to raise claims of
breach of
easement and nuisance.
The federal trial court ultimately
found
that the company had not mustered sufficient evidence to support its
claim that
the removal of the trees was reasonably necessary for
the maintenance of the
pipeline and further that such removal was barred by the doctrine of
laches. The company appealed to the Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.
The court of appeals panel affirmed the trial
courts conclusion
that the neighbors had standing to bring the action. The appeals court
noted
that, for standing to exist, the proponent must show that it has or will
suffer
an actual injury to a legally protected interest and that the conduct
challenged
in the lawsuit has or will cause such injury. It noted further,
under the
prudential notions of standing, that courts ought not
to be used to redress
the claims of others.The plaintiff generally must assert his
own legal rights
and interests, and cannot rest h is claim to relief on the legal rights
or
interests of third parties.
The court began its
analysis be reiterating that the presence of the trees added value to
the
neighbors property. It further noted that the trees are
effectively
irreplaceable. But the court still had to conclude that
injury to the
trees was an injury to the legally protected rights of the neighbors. So
the
court went on to analyze whether the neighboring homeowners had a
cause
of action cognizable under New Jersey law protecting them from
the removal of
the trees.
The court concluded that the restriction in the
easement
grant - that the pipeline owners were to bury the pipeline at a depth so
as not
to interfere with the cultivation of the soil - was intended to benefit
the
owners of the residences on the land adjacent to the easement.
Note that
many of these owners in fact owned land that was part of the originally
tract to
which the easement appurtained, but that the easement was narrowed
before they
obtained their interests.
In this case, the
restrictions set forth
in the Easement grant were clearly intended by the original grantor, the
homeowners predecessors-in-title, to benefit the land by
ensuring that the
pipelines would not unduly interfere with the cultivation and
development of the
property. The homeowners took title to their homes with notice of
the
easement grant, and the rights and restrictions set forth in the
grant. It
is reasonable to infer from the drawing attached to the 1963 agreement
[between
the developers and the pipeline company] that when the [pipeline
company]
executed the agreement, it was aware that the owners of the property-
three real
estate development companies - planned to build a residential
neighborhood
through which the pipelines would run. Based on these facts, the
individual homeowners have a cause of action under New Jersey
Law.
Comment 1: The editor finds the decision - well -
stunning.
The owner of the property on which the trees were growing - the township
- has
decided that it will permit the trees to be removed. But the
neighboring
owners claim that they have a legal right to restrict such
removal. The
basis of the right is a 1963 agreement - admittedly drafted in the
context of a
proposed residential development adjacent to the pipeline easement -
that says
nothing about restrictions on pipeline activity for the purposes of
protecting
residential development (or if it does, the court neglects to tell
us).
All we are told the 1963 agreement contained was an extension of the
rights and
restrictions granted in the original easement, a 1940's instrument
entered into
when the servient land was all agricultural in nature. There is
not on
whit of evidence adduced here to suggest that there was any intent on
the part
of either party to the 1963 agreement to confer a right on neighboring
landowners.
Consider, for instance, if the city elected to remove
the
trees itself. Could the neighbors object? Of course they
could
politically. But would they have standing to restrict the cutting
of trees
on neighboring property because the loss of shade or other aesthetic
benefits
would constitute a nuisance? If so, then the law of nuisance has
been
hugely expanded. But that is a possible conclusion to be drawn
from this
case.
Presumably the court would answer that the question
is not
whether the city - owner of the servient estate - can cut the trees, but
rather
whether the pipeline owner can. And here, the court concludes -
the 1963
easement agreement imposed a duty on the pipeline company to protect the
neighbors. But, as indicated, it is a huge stretch - the editor
believes
an irresponsible one - to conclude that any rights ran to the neighbors
when in
that same agreement the parties reduced the size of the servient estate
to a
sixty foot strip and said not one word about the property outside of
that
strip.
Comment 2: Another possible conclusion here is that
somehow the
public right of way, and the trees planted thereon, passed to the
township as a
public trust, similar to the creation of a park, and the neighbors -
beneficiaries of the public use on the public property - had the right
to
require continuation of beneficial activities that occurred on the
public
property. There is a little precedent for this in the (previously
unprecedented) decision of Citizens for the Preservation of Buehler Park
v. City
of Rolla, 2007 WESTLAW 2246602 (Mo. 8/7/07), the DIRT DD for
9//28/07).
But to find a public trust in the trees on facts such as those in the
instant
case goes far beyond the scope of Buehler Park. There, the city
had
received the property in a dedication for public park purposes
only.
Here, the city received property subject to the pipeline easement and
got it for
the construction and maintenance of a roadway - not an arboreal paradise
for
those living adjacent to the road.
Note: Ultimately, the
court
remanded for further analysis as to whether the pipeline company in fact
had
shown a justification for cutting down the trees. But the standing
issue
is so important that the editor has reserved the discussion of the
rights of the
dominant tenant for a subsequent DD.
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 a
source that is readily accessible by members of
the
general
public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating
confidentiality
issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is an internet
discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message
volume
varies,
but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work day.
Daily
Developments are posted every work day. To
subscribe, send the
message
subscribe Dirt [your
name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your
subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the
address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
for information on
other
commands, send the message
Help to the listserv address.
DIRT
has an
alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only
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
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your
subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff BrokerDIRT to
the
address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
DIRT is a service of
the
American Bar Association
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:
https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=3D
http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt/
-----
<
BR>To
be removed from this mailing list, please go to
<https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=3D
http://listserv.umkc.edu/listserv/wa.exe?SUBED1=3DBROKERDIRT%26A=3D1&
gt;
or
send an email message to the address listserv@listserv.umkc.edu,
with
the
text SIGNOFF BROKERDIRT in the body of the message. Problems
or
questions
should be directed to
manager@listserv.umkc.edu.
smxk2@UMKC.EDU