EASEMENT DEFINED
“An easement is a non-possessory interest that authorizes its holder to use property for a particular purpose.”
Koelsch v. Indus. Gas Supply Corp., 132 S.W.3d 494, 497 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004, pet. denied) (
citing Marcus Cable Assocs. v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697, 700 (Tex. 2002)).
INTERPRETATION OF EASEMENT LANGUAGE
We interpret easements according to basic principles of contract construction and interpretation.
Marcus Cable, 90 S.W.3d at 700;
DeWitt County Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Parks, 1 S.W.3d 96, 100 (Tex. 1999); Koelsch, 132 S.W.3d at 497. Courts construe contracts as a matter of law, and we review their rulings de novo.
See J.M Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223, 229 (Tex. 2003) (applying rule in arbitration-agreement context) (
citing Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 394 (Tex. 1983)). The intent of the parties, as expressed in the grant, determines the scope of the interest conveyed.
Marcus Cable, 90 S.W.3d at 700–01;
Koelsch, 132 S.W.3d at 497–98. To interpret the parties’ intentions adequately and to discern the scope of the rights conveyed to the easement holder, we focus on the terms of the granting language.
See Marcus Cable, 90 S.W.3d at 701.
We rely solely on the written terms of the easement unless the language is ambiguous.
Koelsch, 132 S.W.3d at 498. When terms are not defined, we give them their “plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning.”
Marcus Cable, 90 S.W.3d at 701. Courts must consider the entire writing, assume that the parties intended to give effect to every clause they chose to include, and strive to harmonize and give effect to all the provisions of the contract by analyzing the provisions with reference to the whole agreement.
Frost Nat’l Bank v. L & F Distribs., 165 S.W.3d 310, 312 (Tex. 1999);
Koelsch, 132 S.W.3d at 498;
see also Seagull Energy E & P, Inc. v. Eland Energy, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 342, 345 (Tex. 2006). “When interpreting the granting language of an easement, we resolve doubts about the parties’ intent against the grantor, or servient, estate and adopt the interpretation that is the least onerous to the grantee, or dominant, estate in order to confer on the grantee the greatest estate permissible under the instrument.”
CenterPoint Energy Houston Elec. LLC v. Bluebonnet Drive, Ltd., 264 S.W.3d 381, 388–89 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, pet. denied). No rights pass to the easement holder by implication except those that are “reasonably necessary” to enjoy the rights that the easement grants expressly.
Marcus Cable, 90 S.W.3d at 701. Accordingly, if the grant expressed in the easement cannot be construed to apply to a particular purpose, a use for that purpose is not allowed.
See id.
SOURCE: Houston Court of Appeals - 01-10-00186-CV - 8/4/11
WHEN DOES TRESPASS OCCUR?
WHO IS A TRESPASSER?
A trespasser has neither express nor implied permission to enter the property of another, but enters it nonetheless.
Mellon Mortg. Co. v. Holder, 5 S.W.3d 654, 671 (Tex. 1999);
Koelsch, 132 S.W.3d at 497. An easement holder who exceeds the rights granted by the owner of the servient estate thus commits a trespass.
Compare Marcus Cable, 90 S.W.3d at 703 (reversing trial court’s grant of summary judgment on trespass claim in favor of easement holder, who had installed cable-television lines on easement, because easement document only granted right to use land for purpose of constructing and maintaining facilities to transmit electricity, not cable) with
Koelsch, 132 S.W.3d at 499 (holding that no trespass occurred where easement holder constructed above-ground block valve assembly because easement document granted right to “lay, operate, renew, alter, inspect, and maintain two pipe lines . . . upon, over, under and through” property);
CenterPoint Energy Houston Elec. LLC, 264 S.W.3d 381, 388–89 (holding that no trespass occurred where easement holder allowed assignee to install and use cellular telecommunication equipment within easement because easement document granted right of way for “all necessary and desirable appurtenances” including “telephone and telegraph wires”). A party claiming trespass must establish that the defendant committed an act that exceeded the bounds of any legal rights the defendant may have possessed.
See Koelsch, 132 S.W.3d at 497.
To prevail on a breach of contract claim, a party must establish that: (1) a valid contract existed between the plaintiff and the defendant; (2) the plaintiff tendered performance or was excused from doing so; (3) the defendant breached the terms of the contract; and (4) the plaintiff sustained damages as a result of the defendant’s breach. See Valero Mktg. & Supply Co. v. Kalama Int’l, 51 S.W.3d 345, 351 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, no pet.). “A breach occurs when a party fails or refuses to do something he has promised to do.” Dorsett v. Cross, 106 S.W.3d 213, 217 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.); see DeWitt, 1 S.W.3d at 98 (holding that trial court properly granted directed verdict in favor of electrical cooperative on breach of contract claim, where cooperative had cut down two trees and trimmed another in easement, because easement document gave cooperative right to “cut and trim trees within the right-of-way.”).
SOURCE: Houston Court of Appeals - 01-10-00186-CV - 8/4/11
