Strahm v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., L.P.
2011 Ohio 1171
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Strahm owns two parcels subject to Sohio 1947 and Trans-Ohio 1973 easements; Buckeye is successor in interest.
- Sohio 1947 easement grants lay, maintain, operate, repair, replace and remove the pipe line with reserved landowner rights and potential damages compensation for crops, fences, timber.
- Trans-Ohio 1973 easements grant a 15-foot-wide right-of-way on each side; require landowner use rights and damages payment for crops, timber and fences.
- Between 1988-1994, Strahms planted trees and habitat vegetation under a conservation program, which they believed did not violate easement rights.
- Buckeye notified in 2001 that trees were non-permitted; in 2007 Buckeye prepared to clear 30-foot-wide easements and removed trees/brush on Oct. 23–24, 2007 for maintenance/visibility.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment to Buckeye on maintenance/compensation issues; Strahm appealed, arguing lack of explicit authorization to clear vegetation without compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether easements explicitly authorize vegetation clearing without compensation. | Strahm: no explicit language allowing clearing; not within maintenance when no pipe work. | Buckeye: maintenance includes clearing impediments and vegetation; reasonably necessary and convenient for access/inspection. | Summary judgment improper; genuine issues of material fact; no explicit grant to clear without compensation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crane Hollow, Inc. v. Marathon Ashland Pipe Line, LLC, 138 Ohio App.3d 57 (2000) (easement scope and maintenance considerations controlled by grant language)
- Voisard v. Marathon Ashland Pipeline, LLC, 2006-Ohio-6926 (Ohio 2006) (depends on specific easement language for maintenance/clearance)
- Lakewood Homes, Inc. v. BP Oil, Inc., 1999-Ohio-851 (Ohio 1999) (need for evidence of maintenance feasibility without broader clearance)
- Rueckel v. Texas Eastern Transm. Corp., 3 Ohio App.3d 153 (1981) (easement rights to lay, operate, maintain; interpretation hinges on grant language)
- Pomante v. Marathon Ashland Pipe Line L.L.C., 2010-Ohio-1823 (Ohio 2010) (dimensions/necessity of easement interpreted with reasonableness)
- Alban v. R.K. Co., 15 Ohio St.2d 229 (1968) (express grant limits and reserve rights in easements)
- Columbia Gas Transm. Corp. v. Bennett, 71 Ohio App.3d 307 (1990) (interpretation of express easement terms and surrounding circumstances)