Fleming v. EQT Gathering, LLC, 509 S.W.3d 18

Background

Appellants (Fleming and Bentleys) sued EQT for common-law trespass after EQT built a natural-gas pipeline along the Pike–Letcher county line; Appellants allege (1) the pipeline encroached ~150 feet onto their Pike County land and (2) a bulldozer damaged ~562 sq ft of surface during construction.
EQT obtained a right-of-way from the adjacent Meade heirs on the Letcher County side after Appellants refused a right-of-way.
At trial EQT’s surveyor conceded the bulldozer damaged Appellants’ land but testified the pipeline lay entirely on Meade heirs’ land; despite conflicting evidence about the pipeline location, the trial court directed a verdict for Appellants on liability and submitted only damages to the jury, which awarded compensatory and punitive damages.
EQT appealed; the Court of Appeals vacated the verdict holding the directed verdict on liability was erroneous and, sua sponte, ordered the Meade heirs joined as indispensable parties to resolve the boundary before retrial.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals as to the directed verdict error (trial court should not have decided contested pipeline-location issue) but reversed the joinder requirement, holding the Meade heirs were not indispensable parties to a trespass action between property owner and alleged trespasser.
The Supreme Court also upheld the trial court’s denial of EQT’s last-minute motion to convert the case into reverse condemnation proceedings, noting the motion was untimely and would have disrupted trial preparation; it left any reverse-condemnation defense to the trial court on remand.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether directing a verdict on EQT’s trespass liability was proper	Appellants: EQT’s concession of bulldozer entry established trespass; court could direct verdict and let jury fix damages	EQT: Evidence conflicted about pipeline location; liability was contested and should go to jury	Court: Directed verdict was improper as to pipeline encroachment; only bulldozer surface damage (undisputed) justified judgment as to that limited act; reverse Court of Appeals on this point (affirming that directed verdict was erroneous)
Whether adjoining landowners (Meade heirs) are indispensable parties under CR 19.01	Appellants: Not raised as issue; impliedly unnecessary—trespass can be adjudicated between owner and alleged trespasser	Court of Appeals/EQT (implicitly): Boundary/ownership affects rights and declaratory relief; joinder required before resolving encroachment	Court: Meade heirs are not indispensable; trespass suit can afford complete relief between Appellants and EQT and will not adjudicate title or preclude Meade heirs’ claims; reversed joinder requirement
Whether the trespass claim should have been dismissed for failure to plead reverse condemnation	Appellants: Proper common-law trespass claim—reverse condemnation not required	EQT: As an entity with eminent-domain authority, the proper remedy is reverse condemnation, not common-law trespass	Court: Trial court properly denied EQT’s day-of-trial motion as untimely; left reverse-condemnation defense open for trial court consideration on remand (no substantive ruling)
Whether a trespass verdict would bind nonparties or impair their title claims	Appellants: Trespass judgment does not alter title; resolves liability/damages	EQT/Ct. of Appeals: Concern that boundary resolution and title issues require all interested parties	Court: Trespass judgment does not quiet title or preclude nonparties; absent parties won’t suffer impairment or issue-preclusion; joinder not required

Key Cases Cited

Sutton v. Combs, 419 S.W.2d 775 (discusses standard for directed verdict review)
Witbeck v. Big Rivers Rural Elec. Coop. Corp., 412 S.W.2d 265 (punitive damages not recoverable in reverse-condemnation context)
Commonwealth, Dep’t of Highways v. Stephens Estate, 502 S.W.2d 71 (reverse-condemnation/unanimity rule discussed)
Commonwealth, Dep’t of Highways v. Gilles, 516 S.W.2d 338 (condemnation verdict unanimity requirement)
Bryant v. Perry, 145 S.W.2d 1055 (trespass plaintiff must show acts occurred within plaintiff’s boundary)
Durst v. Amyx, 13 S.W. 1087 (absence of nonparty owners does not bar their later ownership claims)
Miller v. Admin. Office of Courts, 361 S.W.3d 867 (issue-preclusion principles)
Muse v. Payne, 137 S.W. 788 (plaintiff must show ownership or possession to maintain trespass)
Marinaro v. Deskins, 344 S.W.2d 817 (ownership/possession as evidentiary element in trespass actions)