Daily Development for Friday, September 9, 2005
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
EASEMENTS; DUTIES OF SERVIENT TENANT: Holder of pipeline easement can enjoin servient owner from permitting operation of four wheel drive recreational vehicles in easement area where evidence shows that such operation has led to erosion of the soil covering the pipes, thus creating a danger of explosion or fire from materials the pipes carry.
Still v. Eastman Chemical Co., No. 06-04-001224-CV (Tex. App. 2005)
Eastman had various easements to run pipelines for chemical products under Still’s land. It buried some of its pipes at depths of 44 to 60 inches. Still operated an all terrain vehicle park on the surface of the land, involving driving by groups of recreational vehicle drivers in organizations with such names as Rabbit Creek Mountain Mud Blast and East Texas All-Terrain Monsters.
Pipeline inspects observed that there was rutting and consequent erosion in the area of the easements, in some cases reducing the surface area over its pipelines to less than 24 inches, a depth deemed unsafe by federal authorities regulating such pipeline activities. Eastman expressed a concern of fire or explosion resulting from the breach of the pipelines as a consequence of their being so near the surface.
There was scant evidence that Still had in fact encouraged or directed his customers to drive in the area of the pipelines. Nevertheless, the court upheld the trial court’s issuance of an injunction prohibiting Still from “permitting vehicles to continue using the pipeline easements in a way that caused such erosion or rutting.”
Comment 1: The result is not surprising and consistent with law. In fact, the easement likely was more moderate than it might have been, since it apparently permits Still, if possible, to continue to permit operation of all terrain vehicles on his land, so long as he regulates the activity in such as way as to prohibit rutting over the pipelines. Of course, there is no guarantee that any regulation would be followed or that compliance could be policed.
Comment 2: Although the decision does not really advance the law, the editor selected it because it reflects the absolute protection typically given to the uses established by an easement right. Easement interference cases are not nuisance cases. There is no “reasonable balance” to evaluate. The parties have set the balance when they agreed to the easement. From the standpoint of the servient owner, an easement is more than permission to go on one’s land, it is an undertaking to avoid activities on the land that would interfere at all (not just “unreasonably”) with the dominant use.
Comment 3: Of course Eastman could have maintained the coverage over its pipelines by sending out crews regularly to restore it. Or it could have installed protective casings over the lines or just buried them deeper. None of this seemed to matter. It was entitled to conduct its use and expect the servient owner to protect it from interference.
Of course, if the pipeline use was of a character radically different from “ordinary” pipeline activities, the court might have concluded that this use was not one of those uses intended by the parties to the easement. But that wasn’t about to happen in this part of East Texas.
EASEMENTS; DUTIES OF SERVIENT TENANT: Holder of pipeline easement can enjoin servient owner from permitting operation of four wheel drive recreational vehicles in easement area where evidence shows that such operation has led to erosion of the soil covering the pipes, thus creating a danger of explosion or fire from materials the pipes carry.
Still v. Eastman Chemical Co., No. 06-04-001224-CV (Tex. App. 2005)
Eastman had various easements to run pipelines for chemical products under Still’s land. It buried some of its pipes at depths of 44 to 60 inches. Still operated an all terrain vehicle park on the surface of the land, involving driving by groups of recreational vehicle drivers in organizations with such names as Rabbit Creek Mountain Mud Blast and East Texas All-Terrain Monsters.
Pipeline inspects observed that there was rutting and consequent erosion in the area of the easements, in some cases reducing the surface area over its pipelines to less than 24 inches, a depth deemed unsafe by federal authorities regulating such pipeline activities. Eastman expressed a concern of fire or explosion resulting from the breach of the pipelines as a consequence of their being so near the surface.
There was scant evidence that Still had in fact encouraged or directed his customers to drive in the area of the pipelines. Nevertheless, the court upheld the trial court’s issuance of an injunction prohibiting Still from “permitting vehicles to continue using the pipeline easements in a way that caused such erosion or rutting.”
Comment 1: The result is not surprising and consistent with law. In fact, the easement likely was more moderate than it might have been, since it apparently permits Still, if possible, to continue to permit operation of all terrain vehicles on his land, so long as he regulates the activity in such as way as to prohibit rutting over the pipelines. Of course, there is no guarantee that any regulation would be followed or that compliance could be policed.
Comment 2: Although the decision does not really advance the law, the editor selected it because it reflects the absolute protection typically given to the uses established by an easement right. Easement interference cases are not nuisance cases. There is no “reasonable balance” to evaluate. The parties have set the balance when they agreed to the easement. From the standpoint of the servient owner, an easement is more than permission to go on one’s land, it is an undertaking to avoid activities on the land that would interfere at all (not just “unreasonably”) with the dominant use.
Comment 3: Of course Eastman could have maintained the coverage over its pipelines by sending out crews regularly to restore it. Or it could have installed protective casings over the lines or just buried them deeper. None of this seemed to matter. It was entitled to conduct its use and expect the servient owner to protect it from interference.
Of course, if the pipeline use was of a character radically different from “ordinary” pipeline activities, the court might have concluded that this use was not one of those uses intended by the parties to the easement. But that wasn’t about to happen in this part of East Texas.
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 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=http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt/
*************************************
Your e-mail address will only be used within the ABA and its entities. We do not sell or rent e-mail addresses to anyone outside the ABA.
To change your e-mail address or remove your name from any future general distribution e-mails you can call us at 1-800-285-2221, or write to: American Bar Association, Service Center, 321 N Clark Street, Floor 16, Chicago, IL 60610
If you are an ABA member, log in to the ABA Web site at https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.abanet.org/abanet/common/MyABA/home.cfm to edit your member profile. Otherwise, complete the form located at https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=https://www.abanet.org/members/join/coa2.html
To review our privacy statement, go to https://e2k.exchange.umkc.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.abanet.org/privacy_statement.html.
If you have any problems, please contact the list owner at dirt-dd-request@mail.abanet.org.