Southwestern Electric Power Company v. Kenneth Lynch, Tommy Batchelor, and Twant Wilson, 595 S.W.3d 678

In 1949 Southwestern acquired express easements over multiple parcels to build and maintain a transmission line; the recorded easements grant a right-of-way along a described course and ingress/egress for construction, maintenance, removing trees, and related appurtenances, but specify no fixed width.
SWEPCO (successor) maintained the line along the original path for decades and in 2014–15 modernized the line (replacing wood poles with steel).
SWEPCO offered some landowners a supplement fixing the easement width at 100 feet for $1,000; the respondents (landowners) declined SWEPCO’s offer.
After the rebuild the landowners sued for a declaratory judgment that SWEPCO’s easements are fixed at 30 feet (15 feet each side), introducing extrinsic evidence of historical 30-foot use; the trial court so found and awarded fees.
The court of appeals affirmed (concluding extrinsic evidence could fix width); the Texas Supreme Court affirmed jurisdiction but reversed on scope, holding the easements are general (no fixed width) and SWEPCO’s use must be reasonable and reasonably necessary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction / ripeness of UDJA claim	Landowners: present, concrete dispute exists over easement scope and future harm is likely (SWEPCO filed counterclaims; letters/estimates showed potential encroachment).	SWEPCO: claims are speculative—no present unreasonable use or plan to expand; UDJA would be advisory.	Court: Jurisdiction proper; live controversy exists over competing interpretations and potential interference with landowners’ use.
Whether easement width can be fixed by extrinsic evidence / construction of easement	Landowners: Easement is a "framework" and historical use (30 ft) fixes its width; extrinsic evidence admissible to determine reasonable necessary width.	SWEPCO: Easements are express general easements that deliberately omitted a width to allow reasonable future changes; courts must not read in a fixed width—use is limited by reasonableness and necessity.	Court: Easements are general with no fixed width; court erred in admitting extrinsic evidence to write a 30-ft limit. SWEPCO’s use remains limited by what is reasonable and reasonably necessary (and by express terms).

Severance v. Patterson, 370 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2012) (recognizes general easements permit reasonable, necessary use and minimal burden on servient owner)
Coleman v. Forister, 514 S.W.2d 899 (Tex. 1974) (grant in general terms implies unlimited reasonable use as necessary)
Houston Pipe Line Co. v. Dwyer, 374 S.W.2d 662 (Tex. 1964) (limited easement without forward-looking language cannot be enlarged beyond original use)
Knox v. Pioneer Natural Gas Co., 321 S.W.2d 596 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1959) (easement language permitting necessary or convenient future uses allows expanded, reasonably necessary operations)
DeWitt County Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Parks, 1 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. 1999) (apply contract-construction rules to easement interpretation)
Marcus Cable Assocs., L.P. v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. 2002) (an easement’s express terms define permitted purposes; court must give effect to plain language)
Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922 (Tex. 1998) (ripeness is a jurisdictional threshold reviewed de novo)