Nodvin v. Plantation Pipe Line Co.
Decision Date | 05 June 1992 |
Docket Number | A92A0551,Nos. A92A0550,s. A92A0550 |
Citation | 204 Ga.App. 606,420 S.E.2d 322 |
Parties | , Util. L. Rep. P 26,240 NODVIN v. PLANTATION PIPE LINE COMPANY. PLANTATION PIPE LINE COMPANY v. NODVIN. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Richard A. Gordon, Atlanta, Micheline A. Besse, Norcross, for appellant.
Marvin P. Nodvin, pro se.
Edward T. Floyd, Hurt, Richardson, Garner, Todd & Cadenhead, Edward H. Nicholson, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Nodvin instituted this suit against Plantation Pipe Line Company and Diversified Energy Services. He seeks damages for fraud and trespass, alleging that defendants engaged in a conspiracy through which they, without legal authority, entered upon his land and constructed a pipeline for the transportation of oil and gas. Defendants claim that this action was authorized by right-of-way easements contained in deeds executed in 1941 and 1968 within Nodvin's chain-of-title. Nodvin claims that these deeds are invalid. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Diversified and partial summary judgment in favor of Plantation; discovery motions filed by Nodvin were denied. In Case No. A92A0550, Nodvin appeals. In Case No. A92A0551, Plantation cross-appeals.
By deed dated July 14, 1941, E.M. Huffine conveyed the original right-of-way easement to Plantation "for the purpose of constructing, maintaining, operating, altering, repairing, removing, changing the size of, and replacing pipe for the transportation as a common carrier for hire of oil, crude petroleum and refined petroleum products or combinations thereof or similar thereto, natural and artificial gas, casinghead and natural gasoline and any other liquids or gases, the grantee to have the right to select the route, under, upon, over and through the lands situate in said state and county, more particularly described as follows: All of Lot of Land No. 157 ... except.... Also: All of Lot of Land No. 158 ... with ingress and egress to and from the said right-of-way.
The consideration for this deed was $63.
For a consideration of $1,680, H.C. Woods, by deed dated February 7, 1968, conveyed additional easement rights to Plantation across a tract of land lying in Land Lot Nos. 132, 157, and 158 "[a]nd also any other lands owned or claimed by said Grantor adjacent to the lands particularly described above, together with the right of ingress and egress and unimpaired access over and across the above described lands and adjacent lands of the grantor for all purposes incident to said right-of-way and easement ... herein granted.
Plantation constructed the original 10-inch pipeline in 1941. In 1951, Plantation constructed a 14-inch pipeline within the original 30-foot easement. In 1968, Plantation constructed a 26-inch pipeline in the additional 20-foot strip granted under the 1968 deed from Woods.
In 1969, Woods made a conveyance to Credico, Inc., which in turn made a conveyance to Nodvin in the same year. The conveyance to Nodvin covers property in Land Lot No. 158 over which the easement runs.
In 1987, Plantation embarked on a project to construct a 12-inch pipeline beside its other three pipelines along a 28-mile route from Bremen Station near Bremen, Georgia, to Austell Station near Austell, Georgia.
Plantation contracted for Diversified Energy Services to perform surveying, mapping, and right-of-way services in connection with the construction of the 12-inch pipeline. Employees of Diversified were directed and authorized to pay landowners affected by the construction the amount of money stipulated within Plantation's 1941 easements for the right to lay an additional pipeline across each landowner's property. If a particular landowner no longer owned all of the property within the pipeline easement, then the landowner was paid or tendered a prorated amount based on the "roddage" (a rod being 16 1/2 feet) of pipeline traversing his or her property. Diversified employees were also authorized to pay damages to landowners for any damage to their property located contiguous to Plantation's 50-foot easement strip that was used as temporary work space during construction.
Nodvin was one of the property owners affected by the 12-inch pipeline construction. In May or June of 1987, Diversified personnel offered Nodvin $100 as consideration for construction of the additional line and damage which would be caused in areas outside of the easement. In July of 1987, Diversified personnel tendered Nodvin $44 as the cash payment under the 1941 Huffine deed, as amended by the 1968 Woods deed, for the right to lay the additional pipeline along the portion of the right-of-way on Nodvin's property. Nodvin also had pine trees present in the area of a temporary work space. Diversified later attempted to settle these damages by offering plaintiff a total of $2,000 for cutting the pine trees and for the consideration required under the deeds. Nodvin stated that this was inadequate compensation and refused to accept these sums. During the summer of 1987, Plantation entered upon Nodvin's land and commenced laying the 12-inch pipeline.
Nodvin subsequently instituted this suit. In addition to alleging a conspiracy by defendants to commit fraud and trespass by using invalid easements to enter upon his property, he has asserted that they damaged his property by destroying valuable timber and vegetation, by failing to maintain the property which had been disturbed, thereby allowing erosion to occur, and that property used as a work space, outside the easement but contiguous to it, was not reasonably necessary to Plantation's construction activities.
The trial court rejected Nodvin's arguments that Plantation's pipeline right-of-way easement is invalid and that Diversified and Plantation engaged in a conspiracy to commit fraud and trespass. Accordingly, Diversified's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Plantation's motion for summary judgment was granted on all issues except those concerning: (1) the amount of pro-rated consideration to be paid to Nodvin for Plantation's exercise of its right to construct the additional 12-inch pipeline; (2) whether the area used by Plantation as a temporary work space contiguous to the 50-foot easement was reasonably necessary; (3) the amount of damages to be awarded to Nodvin for Plantation's cutting of pine trees in the area of the temporary work space.
The trial court also denied motions by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Properties v. Nichols
...is not a party to any of these companion appeals. 3 Our holding in this case is not inconsistent with Nodvin v. Plantation Pipe Line Co., 204 Ga.App. 606, 612(4), 420 S.E.2d 322 (1992), abrogated in part on other grounds, Yaali, Ltd. v. Barnes & Noble, 269 Ga. 695, 696(2), 506 S.E.2d 116 (1......
-
Transcon. Gas Pipe Line Co. v. 6.04 Acres
...right-of-way was "indefinite" until the line was actually installed. See, e.g. , id. at 390 ; see also Nodvin v. Plantation Pipe Line Co. , 204 Ga.App. 606, 420 S.E.2d 322, 327 (1992) ("[W]here the grant of a pipeline easement is general as to the location of the pipe and its size, it becom......
-
Yaali, Ltd. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., S98A0680.
...Ga. 479 (1869) (recitals of fact regarding grantors' status as heir of original owner do not establish grantors' title). 6. 204 Ga.App. 606, 420 S.E.2d 322 (1992). 7. 144 Ga. 236, 86 S.E. 1089 (1915). 8. Powell, Powell on Real Property, par. 927, at 84-114; Pindar, Georgia Real Estate Law, ......
-
Real Property - T. Daniel Brannan and William T. Sheppard
...and in law." O.C.G.A. Sec. 24-4-24(b)(5) (1995). 52. 269 Ga. at 696, 506 S.E.2d at 118. Yaali cited Nodvin v. Plantation Pipe Line Co., 204 Ga. App. 606, 420 S.E.2d 322 (1992), as support for its position regarding the effect of estoppel on Barnes & Noble's defense. The court concluded that......
-
CHAPTER 14 DUE DILIGENCE FOR THE PURCHASE OF PIPELINE SYSTEMS
...the Title Examiner," Inst. on Rights-of-Way, 12-1 (Rocky Mt. Min. L. Fdn. 1998). [8] Id. [9] See Nodvin v. Plantation Pipe Line Co., 420 S.E.2d 322, 327 (Ga.App. 1992). [10] Boland v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co., 816 S.W.2d 843, 844 (Tex. App. 1991). [11] 11. Id. at 845. See also Zettlemoyer v......