 |
| Google Photo Stock |
By Deborah Elkins
Published: June 13, 2012
Tags: Justice William C. Mims, Real Estate, Supreme Court of Virginia
In dispute over a 30-foot easement on property on Lake Anna, a buried propane tank and well did not constitute an unreasonable interference with the easement owners’ rights, and the Supreme Court of Virginia reverses the contrary decision by the circuit court and an award of attorney’s fees.
A servient landowner may not effectively narrow the defined width of an easement by placing obstructions amounting to a material encroachment on the dominant owner’s rights, even when the encroachment does not interfere with ingress and egress at that time. Here, in the view of the Harts, who challenge interference with their easement by appellant Piney Meeting House Investments (PMH), every encroachment, no matter how minor, is material when the easement is of an express width.
We do not agree. Our cases make clear the owner of a servient estate may still make reasonable use of land burdened by an easement of defined width. An encroachment that does not narrow the width of an easement or unreasonably interfere with its use is not a material encroachment.
The Harts did not allege the tank and well would narrow their easement. The proper inquiry was whether the buried propane tank and well, if modified, would unreasonably interfere with the Harts’ use. The commissioner concluded the improvements would not constitute unreasonable interference if the well were modified and the propane tank were tested to ensure suitability for vehicular access. The circuit court should have ratified this conclusion unless it was not supported by the evidence.
The Harts cite the prospect of the propane tank exploding and the well cracking and becoming contaminated, and contend the well and tank present risks of harm and liability to them and their invitees that lower their property value. Their arguments on appeal are speculative and not based on any evidence adduced at the hearing. PMH presented evidence the fixtures could be modified and tested to ensure normal vehicular access with the approval of the local health department. By contrast, the Harts’ only evidence relevant to their argument on appeal related to a potential buyer’s concern about the narrowing of the easement, not an exploding propane tank or collapsing well.
We find the evidence supports the commissioner’s findings and not the conclusions of the circuit court. The circuit court erred in sustaining the Harts’ exceptions.
The Harts did not entirely prevail in their suit, but they did substantially prevail, as the commissioner concluded the electric box, generator, trees and mulch interfered with the use of the easement and ordered their removal. The circuit court ratified those findings, and it did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs to the Harts. The circuit court abused its discretion in awarding the Harts attorney’s fees under Rule 4:12(c), governing requests for admission. Their request was not a proper discovery request under Rule 4:11 and there was other good reason for the failure to PMH to admit it had no defenses.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded.
Piney Meeting House Investments Inc. v. Hart (Mims) No. 111548, June 7, 2012; Spotsylvania County Cir.Ct. (Beck) Joseph E. Hicks for appellant; R. Scott Pugh for appellees. VLW 012-6-104, 13 pp.
Interesting article. Please contact us if you need legal assistance.
Tucker Griffin Barnes
Charlottesville, VA (434-973-7474)
Inquire@tgblaw.com
www.tgblaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment