Corder v. Ohio Edison Co.

• Decision Date: 12 November 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2019-0951,2019-0951
• Citation: 162 Ohio St.3d 639,166 N.E.3d 1180
• Parties: CORDER et al., Appellees, v. OHIO EDISON COMPANY, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

162 Ohio St.3d 639

166 N.E.3d 1180

CORDER et al., Appellees,

v.OHIO EDISON COMPANY, Appellant.

No. 2019-0951

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted June 17, 2020

Decided November 12, 2020

Kidder Law Firm, L.L.C., and Charles L. Kidder ; and Arenstein & Andersen Co., L.P.A., Nicholas I. Andersen, and Eric R. McLoughlin, Dublin, for appellees.

Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., Cleveland, Denise M. Hasbrook, Toledo, and Nathan Pangrace, Cleveland, for appellant.

Kennedy, J.{¶ 1} This discretionary appeal from a judgment of the Seventh District Court of Appeals presents a single question: does a common pleas court have subject-matter jurisdiction to determine whether an easement granting a public utility "the right to trim, cut and remove * * * trees, limbs, underbrush or other obstructions" permits the public utility to use herbicide to control vegetation within the easement?

{¶ 2} The General Assembly has vested the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio("PUCO") with exclusive jurisdiction over most matters relating to public utilities, including the rates charged and the services provided.Allstate Ins. Co. v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co ., 119 Ohio St.3d 301, 2008-Ohio-3917, 893 N.E.2d 824, ¶ 5.However, the PUCO is not a court of general jurisdiction, and it may not adjudicate claims involving competing property rights, including those asserted by or against a public utility.In re Complaint of Wilkes v. Ohio Edison Co ., 131 Ohio St.3d 252, 2012-Ohio-609, 963 N.E.2d 1285, ¶ 9.The determination of the scope of an easement does not depend on the PUCO's exercise of its administrative expertise or its review of a public utility's vegetation-management program, but rather requires a court to interpret and apply the language of the instrument creating the easement.Seeid.;State ex rel. Wasserman v. Fremont , 140 Ohio St.3d 471, 2014-Ohio-2962, 20 N.E.3d 664, ¶ 28.Interpreting legal instruments is a judicial function, even when the property rights of a public utility are at stake.

{¶ 3}A court of common pleas therefore has subject-matter jurisdiction to determine whether the use of herbicide to control vegetation is within the scope of a public utility's easement.For this reason, the court of appeals correctly reversed the trial court's judgment dismissing this matter as falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the PUCO.However, the appellate court went beyond the narrow issue presented to it in the appeal when it examined the merits of the case and determined that the language of the easements is ambiguous.The sole issue before the court of appeals was whether the cause of action and relief sought were within the jurisdiction of the common pleas court, and the appellate court's analysis should have gone no further.

{¶ 4}We therefore affirm the portion of the judgment of the Seventh District relating to the jurisdiction of the court of common pleas, reverse the remaining portion of its judgment, vacate its holding that the language of the easements is ambiguous as well as its suggested interpretation of the language's meaning, and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 5}AppelleesCraig D. Corder, Jackie C. Corder, and Scott Corder own property in Nottingham Township, Harrison County, Ohio, that is burdened by electrical-transmission-line easements that were originally obtained by the Ohio Public Service Company in 1948 and were subsequently acquired by appellant, Ohio Edison Company.The easements grant Ohio Edison "the right to trim, cut and remove at any and all times such trees, limbs, underbrush or other obstructions as in the judgment of [Ohio Edison] may interfere with or endanger [its] structures, wires or appurtenances, or their operation."

{¶ 6} Following a widespread electrical blackout in August 2003, the Federal Electric Regulatory Commission imposed a requirement that public utilities implement a Transmission Vegetation Management ("TVM") program to prevent vegetation growth from interfering with transmission lines.The PUCO adopted that requirement as an administrative rule, OhioAdm.Code 4901:1-10-27(E)(1)(f).Ohio Edison's vegetation-management plan was adopted pursuant to that provision and became effective in 2010.

{¶ 7} According to Katherine M. Bloss, the manager of transmission-vegetation management for First Energy Service Company(the company that administers the TVM program for Ohio Edison), both the TVM program and established industry practice require the use of herbicides to control vegetation on Ohio Edison's electrical-transmission-line easements throughout the state, including those passing through the Corders' property.She explained that "the only absolute way * * * to avoid future interference with incompatible vegetation that remains after vegetation removal is to use herbicides to remove it."

{¶ 8}Rogerio Maldonado, a transmission forestry specialist for First Energy Service Company, had visited the Corders' property and determined that the condition of the vegetation on the easements required the use of herbicide to prevent interference and contact with Ohio Edison's electrical lines.

{¶ 9}Christina Todd, the general manager of transmission engineering for First Energy Service Company, opined that if vegetation is not controlled, it might interfere with Ohio Edison's electrical-transmission lines and "could result in cascading outages and dangers to life and property."

{¶ 10} The Corders objected to the use of herbicide on the easements as incompatible with their use of their land as an organic farm.They filed this action in the Harrison County Common Pleas Court seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the easements do not give Ohio Edison the right to use herbicide to control vegetation on their property.The parties each moved for summary judgment.

{¶ 11}The trial court noted: "The [question] before the Court is whether ‘remove’ encompasses herbicides in regards to vegetation removal."However, relying on the Seventh District's decision in DeLost v. First Energy Corp ., 7th Dist. MahoningNo. 07 MA 194, 2008-Ohio-3086, 2008 WL 2486506, the trial court concluded that the question whether a public utility may remove vegetation from an easement involves a factual issue regarding the service provided by the public utility and therefore "the PUCO has exclusive jurisdiction over the issue of vegetation removal on a public utility transmission line."

{¶ 12} The Seventh District reversed the trial court's judgment.It distinguished this case from its decision in DeLost and from our decision in Corrigan v. Illum. Co ., 122 Ohio St.3d 265, 2009-Ohio-2524, 910 N.E.2d 1009, on the ground that no party in DeLost or Corrigan had challenged the public utilities' right to remove trees under the easements at issue in those cases; rather, the landowners had argued that the removal of trees was not needed to maintain the public utilities' power lines.2019-Ohio-2639, 2019 WL 2723784, ¶ 39.In contrast, the court of appeals noted, the Corders' complaint sought a declaration that the easements did not grant Ohio Edison the right to control vegetation in the easements using herbicide.Id.at ¶ 14.It concluded that the easements were subject to multiple interpretations and therefore were ambiguous regarding whether the word "remove" in the easements had been intended to include the right to use herbicide.Id.at ¶ 51-52.It then remanded the matter to the trial court for it to resolve the ambiguity concerning the scope of the easements.Id.at ¶ 52-53.

{¶ 13}We accepted for review Ohio Edison's two propositions of law:

1.When a state court sets its own standards for methods that a utility can use to permanently maintain its lines, it usurps the exclusive jurisdiction of the PUCO to ensure that a public utility has adequate facilities to deliver electric power contrary to Corrigan .

2.When an Ohio court improperly finds an ambiguity within a common word or phrase that frustrates the entire purpose of a utility easement, it fails to adhere to the important public policy of permitting electric utilities to erect and properly maintain adequate facilities to provide reliable electric service under R.C. 4905.22.

See157 Ohio St.3d 1439, 2019-Ohio-4211, 132 N.E.3d 700.The resolution of Ohio Edison's first proposition of law resolves this case, and therefore we decline to address its second proposition of law.

Law and Analysis

The Subject-Matter Jurisdiction of the Common Pleas Court

{¶ 14} Subject-matter jurisdiction refers to the constitutional or statutory power of a court to adjudicate a particular class or type of case.Pratts v. Hurley , 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, 806 N.E.2d 992, ¶ 11-12, 34."A court's subject-matter jurisdiction is determined without regard to the rights of the individual parties involved in a particular case."Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta , 141 Ohio St.3d 75, 2014-Ohio-4275, 21 N.E.3d 1040, ¶ 19.Instead, "the focus is on whether the forum itself is competent to hear the controversy."State v. Harper , 160 Ohio St.3d 480, 2020-Ohio-2913, 159 N.E.3d 248, ¶ 23, citing 18A Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure , Section 4428, at 6 (3d Ed.2017)("Jurisdictional analysis should be confined to the rules that actually allocate judicial authority among different courts").

{¶ 15}Article IV, Section 4(A) of the Ohio Constitution provides that "[t]here shall be a court of common pleas and such divisions thereof as may be established by law serving each county of the state," and Article IV, Section 4(B) provides that "[t]he courts of common pleas and divisions thereof shall have such original jurisdiction over all justiciable matters * * * as may be provided by law.""[W]e have interpreted Article IV's mandate that the courts of common pleas have jurisdiction ‘as may be provided by law’ to mean that ‘[t]he general subject matter jurisdiction of Ohio courts of common pleas is...