Johns v. Black Hills Power, Inc., No. 23896.

• Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota
• Writing for the Court: Caldwell
• Citation: 2006 SD 85,722 N.W.2d 554
• Parties: Timothy R. JOHNS and Leann L. Johns, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BLACK HILLS POWER, INC., a South Dakota Corporation, Defendant and Appellee.
• Decision Date: 20 September 2006
• Docket Number: No. 23896.

Page 554

722 N.W.2d 554 2006 SD 85 Timothy R. JOHNS and Leann L. Johns, Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
BLACK HILLS POWER, INC., a South Dakota Corporation, Defendant and Appellee. No. 23896. Supreme Court of South Dakota. Considered on Briefs May 24, 2006. Decided September 20, 2006.

Page 555

Dave L. Claggett, Spearfish, South Dakota, Attorney for plaintiffs and appellants.

Gary D. Jensen of Beardsley, Jensen & VonWald, Rapid City, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellee.

CALDWELL, Circuit Judge.

[¶ 1.] Timothy and LeAnn Johns (Johns) appeal the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Black Hills Power, Inc. (BHP) on their claim of trespass or, in the alternative, inverse condemnation. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

[¶ 2.] On July 24, 1990, Johns purchased a residence located at 110 South Main Street, Lead, South Dakota. The property was purchased from Barbara E. Huebler (Huebler). BHP placed an anchor pole and guy wires on the northeast corner of Huebler's property in 1989. The anchor pole and guy wires provided support for pole No. 7 located on the opposite side of the street. The anchor pole and guy wires were on the property at the time of Johns' purchase. Johns became customers of BHP the day after the property was transferred to them. Johns' residence did not directly receive electrical service from pole No. 7. Its electrical service was provided by pole No. 50.

[¶ 3.] In the spring of 2004, BHP placed a wooden stake in Johns' yard for the proposed placement of additional guy wires. Johns objected to the placement and checked the public records to determine the extent of BHP's rights. A check of the records disclosed no license, easement or other writing granting BHP a right to occupy the property. Johns notified BHP by letter to either immediately

Page 556

remove the pole and guy wires or negotiate an easement if it wished to continue to use the property. BHP ultimately removed the anchor pole and guy wires in November 2004.

[¶ 4.] This action was originally commenced by Johns as a small claims action. BHP petitioned to transfer the case to circuit court. Johns alleged that BHP has committed trespass, or, in the alternative, inverse condemnation.¹ BHP acknowledged that no easement or license had been filed with the register of deeds. BHP maintained that its tariff required the granting of rights of way as a condition of service. BHP asserted that even if a taking had occurred, Johns did not have standing to maintain an action. Further, it argued that Johns had constructive notice of the alleged taking when they purchased the property and, therefore, were estopped or waived any such claim. BHP moved for summary judgment which was granted by the circuit court. Johns appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Under our familiar standard of review in summary judgment cases, we decide only whether genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the law was correctly applied. If any legal basis exists to support the circuit court's ruling, we will affirm. Kobbeman v. Oleson, 1998 SD 20, ¶ 4, 574 N.W.2d 633, 635 (citing SDCL 15-6-56(c) (1966)); see De Smet Ins. Co. of South Dakota v. Gibson, 1996 SD 102, ¶ 5, 552 N.W.2d 98, 99. "With the material facts undisputed, our review is limited to determining whether the [circuit] court correctly applied the law." Kobbeman, 1998 SD 20, ¶ 4, 574 N.W.2d at 635.

Schulte v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., 2005 SD 75, ¶ 5, 699 N.W.2d 437, 438.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION ISSUE

[¶ 5.] Whether the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of BHP.

Tariff

[¶ 6.] SDCL 49-34A-10 provides:

Pursuant to rules promulgated under chapter 1-26 by the Public Utilities Commission, every public utility shall file with the commission, within such time and in such form as the commission may designate, tariffs and schedules showing the terms and conditions of service and all rates established by the public utility and collected or enforced, or to be collected or enforced, within the jurisdiction of the commission. The public utility shall keep copies of such tariffs and schedules open to public inspection under such rules as the commission may promulgate. Schedules and tariffs approved by the commission have the force and effect of law.

Before the circuit court, BHP asserted that Section 310 of the Rules and Regulations Covering Electric Service (tariff) filed by BHP with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) granted a right-of-way without compensation. Section 310 provides:

Customer shall, without compensation, make or procure satisfactory conveyance to Company of right-of-way for Company's lines necessary and incidental to the furnishing of service to customer and for

Page 557

continuing or extending said lines over and across the property owned or controlled by customer. The Company shall not be liable for damages involving the power line when such damages result from actions of parties other than the Company.

[¶ 7.] Johns argued that Section 310 is unconstitutional in as much as it provides for a taking without compensation. BHP argued that the tariff is a contract with its customers and is accepted by the customer when accepting...