Farrell v. Vermont Electric Power Co., and Vermont Transco, LLC
68 A.3d 1111
Vt.2012Background
- Farrell owns property in South Burlington; VELCO obtained a perpetual easement in 1976 for the Queen City Tap Project under a condemnation order.
- The 1976 order authorized construction, operation, maintenance, and vegetation management to prevent interference with lines; compensation for the taking was $38,850 with no impairment to remaining property.
- In 1977, the Queen City Tap line was installed within the described right of way using multiple poles and wires.
- In 2005, VELCO obtained a certificate for the Northwest Reliability Project and, in 2008, installed a second transmission line (NRP) within Farrell’s easement and updated the QCT line; the two lines run in parallel about 31 feet apart.
- In 2010, Farrell sued for damages alleging the NRP line overburdened the easement and seeking compensation; the trial court granted summary judgment for VELCO.
- The court held the easement unambiguously authorized lines beyond the QCT line and that the NRP line did not overburden the property or require additional compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of easement (authority to install NRP line) | Farrell argues the 1976 order confines use to QCT. | VELCO argues the easement language grants broad authority to install lines now or hereafter. | VELCO's installation of the NRP line was authorized. |
| Overburdening and compensation for the NRP line | NRP line increases burden; taller towers and parallel lines overburden property, requiring compensation. | No additional burden beyond original purpose; no further compensation. | NRP line does not overburden the easement and does not require compensation. |
| Relation to scope of condemnation order and necessity | The taking was for QCT; additional line not contemplated should have been treated as a new burden. | Condemnation order defines the scope by its terms and the broader purpose of transmitting electricity. | Scope defined by express terms; the NRP line falls within the authorized use. |
Key Cases Cited
- Auclair v. Vermont Elec. Power Co., 133 Vt. 22 (Vt. 1974) (condemnation easement interpreted by terms of the grant)
- Rowe v. Lavanway, 180 Vt. 505 (Vt. 2006) (easement scope; burden analysis in condemnation context)
- DeGraff v. Burnett, 182 Vt. 314 (Vt. 2007) (interpretation of easement scope from language of deed/order)
- Kipp v. Chips Estate, 169 Vt. 102 (Vt. 1999) (extrinsic evidence not used to limit easement where language unambiguous)