Thornton Properties v. Alabama Power Co.
| Decision Date | 16 August 1989 |
| Citation | 550 So.2d 1024 |
| Parties | THORNTON PROPERTIES, a partnership v. ALABAMA POWER COMPANY. Civ. 7015. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
James J. Odom, Jr., Birmingham, for appellant.
James A. Bradford of Balch & Bingham, Birmingham, for appellee.
L. CHARLES WRIGHT, Retired Appellate Judge.
Thornton appeals from a summary judgment which was granted to Alabama Power Company (APCo).
In September and December 1970 and May 1971, Thornton executed three separate easements granting APCo the right to construct and maintain utility poles and facilities on specified parts of Thornton's property.
In May 1981 Thornton executed a contract with APCo which granted Thornton the right to attach cable television wires and facilities to APCo's utility poles. Under the terms of the contract Thornton was required to pay APCo "an average installed cost per pole" every year in advance. Subsequently, Thornton attached cable television wires to APCo's utility poles and paid a pro rata portion of rent due under the contract for the first year. APCo billed Thornton for the annual rental charges due for the years 1982-1986. Thornton refused to pay the amounts due. APCo brought suit for a declaration of the rights and duties of the parties and for specific performance of the 1981 contract.
APCo moved for summary judgment based upon the pleadings, discovery, a supporting affidavit, and the deposition of Thomas J. Thornton, one of the partners of Thornton Properties. The motion was granted. The judge declared the 1981 contract a valid agreement and awarded APCo $7,130.75 plus interest from the respective annual due dates.
The issue on appeal is whether Thornton has the right to make use of APCo's utility poles that have been placed upon the easement.
Thornton submits that, as owner of the fee who has granted a right-of-way or easement, it retains the right to use the underlying fee for any purpose not unreasonable and which does not interfere with the rights of the owner of the dominant estate, citing, Duke v. Pine Crest Homes, Inc., 358 So.2d 148 (Ala.1978).
APCo does not dispute the law of servient rights of the owner of the fee after granting an easement. It submits that Thornton's use in this case is not a use of the fee but a use of APCo's poles which are its personal property.
In sum, Thornton asserts that, since the utility poles have been attached to the realty, they are now fixtures and its use of them is a reasonable use of the fee in the easement.
As respects Duke, we agree that the servient owner may use the land upon which an easement has been dedicated so long as such use is reasonable and does not conflict with the purpose and character of the easement. The appurtenance at issue in Duke, a driveway, was permanently affixed to the land. Therefore, we do not find that Duke is dispositive of the case before us.
"[A] fixture is a thing which, although originally a movable chattel, is, by reason of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bell v. TR Miller Mill Co., Inc.
...as a "product" for purposes of the AEMLD. Miller recognizes that the Court of Civil Appeals, in Thornton Properties v. Alabama Power Co., 550 So.2d 1024, 1025-26 (Ala.Civ.App.1989), held that the utility poles in question in that case were personal property, not fixtures, but it states that......
-
LaFarge Bldg. Materials, Inc. v. Stribling
...v. State, 96 Ala. 44, 46, 11 So. 334, 335 (1891). See also Sharp v. Sharp, 540 So.2d 1373 (Ala.1989); Thornton Props. v. Alabama Power Co., 550 So.2d 1024 (Ala.Civ.App.1989). Using this test, this Court determined in Milford, where no landlord/tenant relationship existed, that equipment use......