Texas Oil and Gas Attorney Blog
In Boerschig v. Rio Grande Electric Cooperative, the Texas Supreme Court addressed two questions: 1) what are the elements of an easement by estoppel; and 2) what is the scope of that easement.
John Boerschig bought a large ranch in Kinney County, Texas that had an old electric line running across part of the ranch. The line consisted of between seventeen and twenty wooden poles, each rising thirty feet and carrying four wires on a single crossarm. The line was authorized by an old “blanket” easement, i.e., an easement that does not specify the specific location on the easement property for the line.
The easement granted the right “to place, construct, operate, repair, maintain, relocate and replace” “an electric transmission or distribution line or system” on 5,684 acres of the ranch. The easement also provided that “at pole locations, only single pole and appurtenances will be such as to form the least possible interference to farm operations, so long as it does not materially increase the cost of construction.”
In 2012, the owner of the line, Rio Grande Electric Cooperative, notified Mr. Boerschig that it planned to upgrade the line. The easement upgrade involved triple the number of poles and twice the number of lines. Mr. Boerschig objected and filed this suit.
As to the first question the Court held that “…legally sufficient evidence supports the jury’s finding of an easement by estoppel: an unrecorded writing by a prior owner represented that an easement was being conveyed, the cooperative detrimentally relied on the representation in constructing the original line, and the purchaser knew about the line when he bought the ranch.”
As to the second question the Court held that “…the upgraded line exceeds the scope of this easement as a matter of law. The record shows that the purchaser had no notice of the unrecorded writing when he bought the property and that the investment the cooperative made in reliance on the writing was the line as it existed at that time. The cooperative explained that the upgrade would serve a new customer and a new substation; (but) it offered no evidence that the upgrade was reasonably necessary to continue its existing use of the line.”
Obviously, this case may have far-reaching implications for electric utilities relying on old blanket easements, but also for pipeline companies seeking to upgrade their lines.