Adamson v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC

• Decision Date: 13 November 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:13CV214–HEH.
• Citation: 987 F.Supp.2d 700
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
• Parties: V. Cassel ADAMSON, III, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v. COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

987 F.Supp.2d 700

V. Cassel ADAMSON, III, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant,

v.COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC, Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

Civil Action No. 3:13CV214–HEH.

United States District Court,

E.D. Virginia,

Richmond Division.

Nov. 13, 2013.

John Buckley Warden, IV, Brittany Joy Berlauk, S. Sadiq Gill, Durrettecrump PLC, Richmond, VA, for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant.

Travis Aaron Sabalewski, Alison Ross Wickizer Toepp, Reed Smith LLP, Richmond, VA, Michael Sterling Dingman, Reed Smith LLP, Falls Church, VA, for Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Cross Motions for Summary Judgment)

HENRY E. HUDSON, District Judge.

This is, in essence, a dispute over the dimensions of a natural gas pipeline right of way passing through residential property in Goochland County, Virginia. The easement in question is the product of a right of way agreement granted by prior owners of V. Cassel Adamson, Ill's (“Adamson”) property to Commonwealth Natural Gas Corporation (“Commonwealth”), Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC's (“Columbia”) predecessor in interest. The right of way, recorded in 1956, neither specifies its width nor describes a designated cleared area, but recites the purpose for which the easement was granted. In subsequent years, Columbia installed two high pressure, below-grade natural gas pipelines in that area. The pipelines are major sources of natural gas for the entire Tidewater region of Virginia.

This case evolved from Columbia's entry onto the easement area of Adamson's property for the purpose of clearing encroaching trees and undergrowth purportedly to enable maintenance and inspection. Adamson contends that the width of Columbia's clearing was beyond the dimensions of the right of way easement and seeks damages for common law trespass. Columbia counters that its entry onto Adamson's property and removal of foliage was within the dedicated right of way. To vindicate its claim, Columbia seeks declaratory judgment defining the current width of the right of way.

This case is presently before the Court on cross motions for summary judgment filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Each claim turns on the construction of the right of way agreement and the legal significance of events following its execution. Each party, however, urges the Court to adopt a different theory of analysis. Both parties have filed detailed memoranda of law supporting their respective positions, accompanied by pertinent land records. The Court heard oral argument on November 7, 2013.

The record reveals that on or about April 20, 1956, Commonwealth entered into a right of way agreement (the “Agreement”) with Frederick Bennett McBride and Penelope A. McBride (the “McBrides”), predecessors in titled to the property currently owned by Adamson. The Agreement was recorded among the land records of Goochland County, on or about May 2, 1956. The Agreement, in pertinent part, grants to Commonwealth, its successors and assigns, “the right to la[y], maintain, operate and remove a pipe line, or pipe lines for the transportation of gas, oil, petroleum products, or any other liquids, gases or substances which can be transported through a pipe line, through our lands in Dover District, Goochland County ... with the right of ingress and egress to and from and through same.” (Pl.'s Mem. Support Mot. Summ. J., Ex. A, ECF No. 35 (hereinafter “Agreement”).) The Agreement also states that “[t]he Grantee is further granted the right at any time to lay additional lines of pipe approximately parallel to the first line herein....” Id.

In 1957, Commonwealth installed the first natural gas pipeline through the easement. The pipeline designated VM 108 was 18 inches in diameter. There is no evidence in the record of the dimensions of the clearing at that time.

In 1969, the McBrides conveyed a large parcel of land, including that currently owned by Adamson, to the Partridge Hill Company. The plat recorded with the Partridge Hill deed reflects an easement sixty feet wide. (Am. Countercl., Exs. 3, 4, ECF No. 28.) Partridge Hill apparently developed the land into a residential community.

In 1992, a second parallel pipeline was laid within the dedicated right of way.¹ This pipeline, VM 109, was 24 inches in diameter. Based on the testimony of Adamson's neighbor, Robert R. Pounders (“Pounders”), who was periodically present during the installation of the second pipeline in 1992, the cleared area comprising the right of way was approximately forty feet in width at that time. (Pl.'s Mem. Support Mot. Summ. J., Ex. B at 16:15–17: 7 (hereinafter “Pounders Tr.”).) Pounders' estimate is based on unrecorded past recollection without measurement or specific knowledge of property lines. (Pounders Tr. 18:8–23.)

Adamson and his wife purchased two contiguous parcels of property in 2005 and 2007 within the Partridge Hill development on which they constructed a home. Both deeds expressly state that the land is subject to applicable easements, conditions, restrictions and agreements of record. Adamson acknowledges that the 2005 deed conveying the land to him and his wife depicted a sixty foot wide easement on the property. The easement was specifically identified as a sixty foot Commonwealth right of way. (Am. Countercl., Ex. 1.) Similarly, the deed to the contiguous property acquired by Adamson in 2007 designated a sixty foot Commonwealth right of way easement on the property. ( Id.)

Adamson maintains that the easement begins at the eastern edge of his property and extends westward approximately forty feet. (Pl.'s Mem. Opp'n Mot. Summ. J., Ex. A at 28:3–5, ECF No. 43.) Adamson, while aware of the sixty foot wide easements depicted on the 2005 and 2007 deed plats, maintains that he believes that they were a scrivener's error.² (Def.'s Mem. Support Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 4.) However, under Virginia Code Section 8.01–389(C), “recitals of any fact in a deed ... of record conveying any interest in real property shall be prima facie evidence of that fact.” Id.; see also Ashworth v. Cole, et al., 180 Va. 108, 21 S.E.2d 778 (1942).

In 2007, Columbia, claiming the easement was sixty feet wide, notified Adamson that it intended to remove trees and other encroachments from the easement. Columbia's stated reason for the clearing was to enable aerial surveillance for leakage and damage and to comply with federal regulations. (Def.'s Mem. Support Mot. Summ. J., Ex. 1 at ¶¶ 20–29, 33, 34(b), ECF No. 33 (hereinafter “Parrish Decl.”).) Adamson declined to grant Columbia authority to enter his property claiming that the historically cleared area was approximately forty feet wide.³ When Columbia initially appeared on Adamson's property to clear the easement area, Adamson summoned the Goochland County Sheriff who took no enforcement action.

On September 14, 2009, in the absence of Adamson and his wife, Columbia again entered their property and cleared an additional swath along the pipeline right of way area. Claiming the right to a sixty foot easement, Columbia cut approximately twenty feet of mature trees and underbrush. The resulting stumps were ground and removed from the property. In the aftermath of this clearing process, Adamson and his wife were deprived of privacy and screening which they maintain was critical to the quiet enjoyment of their property. This lawsuit followed seeking compensation to restore the felled tree line.

The standard of review for cross motions for summary judgment is well settled in the Fourth Circuit. In considering cross motions for summary judgment, a district court should “rule upon each party's motion separately and determine whether summary judgment is appropriate as to each under the Rule 56 standard.” Monumental Paving & Excavating, Inc. v. Pa. Mfrs. Ass'n Ins. Co., 176 F.3d 794, 797 (4th Cir.1999). Summary judgment is appropriate only if the record shows “ ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ” Norfolk S. Ry. Co. v. City of Alexandria, 608 F.3d 150, 156 (4th Cir.2010) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)).

The relevant inquiry in the summary judgment analysis is “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Once a motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported, the opposing party has the burden of showing that a genuine dispute exists. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). “[T]he mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505. A material fact is one that might affect the outcome of a party's case. Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505;JKC Holding Co. LLC v. Wash. Sports Ventures, Inc., 264 F.3d 459, 465 (4th Cir.2001). A “genuine” issue concerning a “material” fact only arises when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, is sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict in that party's favor. Id.

Furthermore, to defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment, the nonmoving party must rely on more than conclusory allegations, “mere speculation or the building of one inference upon another,” or the “mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” concerning a material fact. Stone v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 105 F.3d 188, 191 (1997) (citations omitted); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Jurisdiction in this case is based on diversity. Therefore, this Court must decide the substantive issues as “[i]t believe[s] the Supreme Court of Virginia would decide were it faced with the issue.”...