Pam Miller and Tobe Miller v. Jasper-Newton Electric Cooperative, Inc.
12-17-00012-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 31, 2017Background
- Pam and Tobe Miller own 32 acres in Jasper County, Texas; they became members of Jasper‑Newton Electric Cooperative in 2005.
- The Millers’ membership application and later a 2007 right‑of‑way easement granted Jasper‑Newton rights to construct, operate, repair, and maintain electric lines and equipment on the Millers’ premises.
- In 2014 two Jasper‑Newton employees entered the Millers’ property without prior notice; Jasper‑Newton later ran a line from a pole on the Millers’ property to serve an adjoining property.
- The Millers sued for declaratory relief, arguing the easement authorizes service only to the Millers’ property and not to other properties; they dropped an initial trespass claim.
- Jasper‑Newton moved for traditional summary judgment, asserting the written application, service tariff (incorporated by reference), and the 2007 right‑of‑way unambiguously authorized system use of lines to serve other members.
- The trial court granted Jasper‑Newton’s summary judgment; the court of appeals affirmed, holding the easement language authorized use as part of Jasper‑Newton’s distribution system to serve others.
Issues
| Issue | Miller's Argument | Jasper‑Newton's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the express easement is limited to providing electric service only to the Millers’ property | The easement language (e.g., “on the premises”) should be read to limit use to benefit only the Millers’ property | The application, tariff, and ROW expressly grant rights to construct/operate distribution or transmission lines as part of the cooperative’s system; no language limits service to Millers only | Court held the easement authorizes Jasper‑Newton to use the lines as part of its distribution system to serve other properties; summary judgment for Jasper‑Newton affirmed |
| Whether extrinsic exhibits (D2 handbook pages) should alter the easement interpretation | Exhibits and supplemental filings should have been considered or stricken in favor of Millers | Exhibits did not affect the unambiguous written easement language | Court found exhibits irrelevant to controlling document interpretation (trial court did not err in denying motions regarding these items) |
| Whether leave to file additional supplemental response should have been granted | Trial court abused discretion by denying leave to file second supplemental response | Denial did not affect the dispositive easement interpretation | Court declined to reverse because additional filings would not change the ruling on the unambiguous easement |
| Whether Jasper‑Newton exceeded easement scope by running a line to an adjoining property | Use to serve adjoining property exceeded grant and constituted overuse | The grant authorized construction/operation of transmission or distribution lines as part of the cooperative system; such system use is within the grant | Court held running a line to serve an adjoining property was within the easement’s scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Kachina Pipeline Co. v. Lillis, 471 S.W.3d 445 (Tex. 2015) (standard of review for traditional summary judgment)
- Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. 2009) (summary judgment evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Marcus Cable Assocs., L.P. v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. 2002) (easement scope governed by contract principles; use must further easement purpose)
- DeWitt Cty. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Parks, 1 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. 1999) (contracting parties’ intentions in the document control easement scope)
- Lower Colo. River Auth. v. Ashby, 530 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1975) (easement use may change over time consistent with original purpose)
- Whaley v. Cent. Church of Christ, 227 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (easement includes rights reasonably necessary for full enjoyment of granted rights)