Preview:

Present:  Carrico, C.J., Compton, Lacy, Hassell, Keenan, and Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice

BURLEY E. HISE AND  
DARLENE S. HISE
                                            OPINION BY
V. Record No. 961577 SENIOR JUSTICE HENRY H. WHITING
                                          September 12, 1997
BARC ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, ET AL.

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BATH COUNTY
Duncan M. Byrd, Jr., Judge

In this appeal, we consider the scope of an electric power company's rights in an easement in gross for the construction and operation of its electric power line acquired (1) by prescription and (2) by eminent domain.  Specifically, we decide whether the power company can permit a telephone company and a cable television company to attach their lines to the power company's poles without the consent of the owners of the servient estate.
For a number of years, BARC Electric Cooperative (the power company) operated a 7,000 volt electric power line pursuant to an alleged 30-foot prescriptive right of way across the property of Burley E. Hise and Darlene S. Hise in Bath County.  In an eminent domain proceeding, the power company acquired the rights (1) to "relocate" its pole line by erecting single pole structures at a height not to exceed 60 feet at locations shown on a plat attached to its "petition for condemnation" and (2) to widen its prescriptive right of way by 50 feet in order to construct and operate a new 46,000 volt electric power line over the Hise property.  Following that proceeding, the power company installed new poles and lines within the original 30-foot easement and transferred its original lines to the new poles.
Since the power company had permitted Virginia Telephone Company and Bath Cable TV, Inc., to attach their respective lines to the original poles, and the three companies planned to move those lines to the power company's new poles, the power company did not comply with the Hise request to remove the original poles and the telephone and cable lines attached thereto.  Whereupon, the Hises brought this action against all three companies to compel the removal of the original poles and to enjoin the telephone and cable companies from transferring their lines to the new poles.
After hearing evidence on the issue of the width of the prescriptive easement, the court found it to be 30 feet wide.  Thereafter, in sustaining motions for summary judgment filed by the telephone and cable companies, the court held that they could transfer their lines to the power company's new poles pursuant to their agreements with the power company.  The court also ordered the power company to remove the old poles after such transfer.  The Hises appeal the first two rulings.
While conceding that the power company had established its prescriptive easement over their property, the Hises contend that the power company failed to carry its burden of establishing the width of its prescriptive easement by clear and convincing evidence as required in Pettus v. Keeling, 232 Va. 483, 486, 352 S.E.2d 321, 324 (1987).  The power company contends that it has carried that burden.
In accordance with well-settled appellate principles, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the power company, the prevailing party on this issue of fact.  Such evidence indicates that for a period of more than 20 years prior to the filing of this suit, the power company periodically sprayed and cleared the foliage and undergrowth along its pole line, including the Hise property, for a width of at least 30 feet.  The evidence also discloses that during this period it was the usual and customary practice of all power companies, including this one, to "make all rural lines thirty feet [wide]."
In our opinion, this evidence sufficiently supports the court's finding that the prescriptive right of way was 30 feet wide.  Accordingly, we reject this contention of the Hises.  Next, the Hises claim that neither the prescriptive rights nor the rights taken in the eminent domain proceeding are exclusive or apportionable and therefore the power company had no right to authorize the attachment of the telephone and cable lines to its new pole lines.  The utility companies disagree.
All parties describe these easements as easements in gross, which are "easement[s] with a servient estate but no dominant estate."  Corbett v. Ruben, 223 Va. 468, 472, 290 S.E.2d 847, 849 (1982).  Although personal to the grantee, the easement is transferable by the grantee.  Code

Download 1961577.pdf

Virginia Law