William Franklin and Judith Franklin v. Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC
07-15-00006-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 11, 2015Background
- In 1948 TP&L (Oncor’s predecessor) obtained a 150-foot transmission-line easement by condemnation; the order prohibited growth over 15 feet within 75 feet of centerline and authorized removal and prevention of such growth.
- In August 1965 Maddox (Franklins’ predecessor) executed a supplemental easement purporting to grant additional trimming/clearing rights to TP&L (including cutting and keeping cut shrubs over 15 feet); later in November 1965 a modification allowed construction/trees on the outer 5 feet.
- In 2009 Oncor planned a new transmission line and presented a work plan identifying trees/shrubs to be removed; Oncor removed those identified items and offered $11,550 (at set rates) for those removals; the Franklins sought $137,507 for all removals and sued when Oncor refused.
- Oncor moved for traditional summary judgment, arguing it had the preexisting right under the condemnation order to remove vegetation and that no enforceable contract required additional payment; the trial court granted the motion.
- The Franklins appealed, arguing the trial court misharmonized documents, misinterpreted removal rights (trees vs. shrubs), and erroneously granted summary judgment despite factual disputes (including alleged email contract).
- The court reviewed the unambiguous instruments de novo, concluded the condemnation order already granted removal authority (making the 1965 supplemental grant ineffective to expand rights), found no enforceable email contract, and affirmed summary judgment for Oncor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the easement documents must be harmonized to limit Oncor’s removal rights | Franklins: harmonize instruments to restrict Oncor to cutting/keeping only shrubs over 15 ft; no right to remove shrubs off easement | Oncor: original condemnation already authorized removal; later purported grants cannot enlarge preexisting rights | Court: Affirmed Oncor; original condemnation grants removal authority; supplemental attempt to grant more is ineffective |
| Whether Oncor was required to pay compensation for removed trees/shrubs | Franklins: there was an agreement (via emails) obligating payment at asserted amount | Oncor: no contract existed; offered payment was voluntary; emails lacked offer, acceptance, terms, consideration | Court: No enforceable contract; emails reflect attorney understandings only; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether material factual disputes remained (trespass/conversion/contract) | Franklins: factual issues exist about what was removed, terms, and damages | Oncor: acted under lawful easement rights so no trespass or conversion; no contract => no damages due | Court: No material fact issues; Oncor’s easement rights negate trespass/conversion; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferguson v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am., 295 S.W.3d 642 (Tex. 2009) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Luckel v. White, 819 S.W.2d 459 (Tex. 1991) (construction of unambiguous deeds is a question of law)
- Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. 1991) (defendant wins traditional summary judgment if it disproves one element of plaintiff’s cause)
- Green Int’l, Inc. v. Solis, 951 S.W.2d 384 (Tex. 1997) (conversion requires wrongful exercise of dominion over property)
- Hubbard v. Shankle, 138 S.W.3d 474 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 2004) (elements required for contract formation)