Summary
The Supreme Court of Alabama reviewed whether a utility company could apportion a prescriptive easement to a telecommunications company under a pole-sharing agreement. The Court held that a prescriptive easement may be apportioned, but only to the extent of the rights established by the use creating the easement; the record did not establish that the fiber-optic cable fell within that scope. The Court also rejected laches as an alternative basis for summary judgment in favor of Lightwave and affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Alabama Power's prescriptive easement was apportionable for use by Lightwave.
- Whether apportionment of Alabama Power's prescriptive easement automatically authorized Lightwave to string a fiber-optic cable on Alabama Power's utility pole.
- Whether the defendants established laches as an alternative basis for affirming summary judgment on the trespass and conspiracy claims.
Holdings
- An exclusive prescriptive easement in gross may be apportioned, but only to the extent that the additional use falls within the scope of the prescriptive easement.
- Alabama Power's apportionment of its prescriptive easement did not, as a matter of law, authorize Lightwave to string a telecommunications cable on Alabama Power's pole; only rights acquired by Alabama Power through its prescriptive use could be apportioned.
- The defendants did not establish laches as an alternative basis for summary judgment on the claims concerning Lightwave's cable and the related conspiracy.
Key quotations
“Therefore, although we agree with Lightwave that prescriptive, exclusive easements in gross like APCo's are apportionable, we, like the court in Ogg, must conclude that only those rights acquired by APCo may be apportioned.” (at 720)
“APCo acquired the right to string power lines across the disputed property. APCo did not acquire a right to string any line or cable providing something other than, or related to, electrical power over the easement.” (at 720-721)
Factual background
Alabama Power maintained power lines and a utility pole across property initially owned by Lindburgh Jackson. Jackson acquired an interest in the property in 1978, conveyed it to Kathy Matthews in 1999, and had objected periodically to Alabama Power's use. Between 2000 and 2001, Lightwave installed fiber-optic cable on the pole under a pole-sharing agreement with Alabama Power. Jackson and Matthews sued, alleging trespass and conspiracy to commit trespass.
Procedural history
Jackson sued Alabama Power Company, Lightwave, the City of Auburn, and others, alleging trespass and conspiracy to commit trespass arising from the installation of Lightwave's fiber-optic cable on Alabama Power's utility pole. Matthews was later added as a plaintiff. The trial court entered summary judgment for all defendants. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Alabama Power on the trespass claim but reversed or otherwise remanded portions concerning Lightwave and the conspiracy claims. The Supreme Court granted Lightwave's certiorari petition and affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment.
Remand instructions
The Court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment, leaving in place the remand for further proceedings on the trespass and conspiracy claims affected by the improper summary judgment.