Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sack v. FirstEnergy Corp.

November 19, 2008

JULIAN SACK, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
FIRSTENERGY CORP., JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT AND NELSON TREE SERVICE, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.



On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L-1114-05.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Argued September 23, 2008

Before Judges Skillman and Grall.

Plaintiff Julian Sack appeals from orders dismissing his complaint and granting summary judgment in favor of defendants Jersey Central Power & Light Company and FirstEnergy Corporation (collectively JCP&L), and defendant Nelson Tree Service (Nelson). Sack sought damages from JCP&L and its contractor, Nelson, alleging that JCP&L exceeded its right to clear trees in its right of way on Sack's property. Sack and Nelson settled a claim for damage to property outside the right of way.

JCP&L acquired the right of way by grant in 1964. Within the area of the right of way, JCP&L has the "right to construct, maintain and operate . . . one or more lines for the transmission or distribution of electric energy." JCP&L also has the right "to remove or clear and keep clear any or all trees, underbrush, structures and other obstructions upon said right of way, and such trees beyond the same as in the judgment of Grantee may interfere with or endanger said lines or appurtenances when erected." JCP&L has "the right of entry upon [the] right of way for" those purposes and the right to enter the property beyond the easement "for the purpose of removing endangering or interfering trees and limbs."

"Subject to" JCP&L's exercise of its rights, Sack's predecessors in interest retained for themselves and their successors the right to "farm, cultivate, or use the ground within the limits of said right of way without substantial change of grade, provided that such use shall not interfere with, limit or obstruct any subsequent exercise of the rights hereby granted . . . ." JCP&L is obligated to save the landowner harmless for damage to crops caused by JCP&L's use of "any insecticides or poisonous materials" within the right of way.

When Sack purchased the property in 1984, the towers and power lines had been installed. Between 1984 and 1996, JCP&L pruned trees in the easement area. In 1996, a dispute arose about JCP&L's plan to remove trees from the right of way, which was resolved when JCP&L agreed to replace some of the trees that it planned to remove. Between 1996 and March 2004, JCP&L did not remove any trees. On May 6, 2004, Nelson cleared all trees and shrubbery within the right of way and left seventy-one tree stumps.

Removal of the stumps will cost Sack $19 per stump. After the stumps are removed, he will incur additional expense for disposal and re-grading, filling and seeding the soil.

Sack alleged JCP&L exceeded its rights under the right of way because the trees and shrubs were not interfering with the power lines. The trial court rejected that claim on the ground that JCP&L has an unqualified right to remove trees and vegetation from the right of way.

The trial court's interpretation of JCP&L's rights under the terms of the right of way is unassailable. An "instrument granting or reserving a right of way must be read as a whole and construed to carry out the evident intent of the parties." Hyland v. Fonda, 44 N.J. Super. 180, 187 (App. Div. 1957). When the terms are clear and unambiguous our courts apply them as written without further inquiry. Boss v. Rockland Elec. Co., 95 N.J. 33, 38 (1983).

The terms of this instrument are unambiguous. JCP&L has a right to cut trees within and beyond the right of way. Within the right of way JCP&L has unbridled discretion. Beyond the right of way JCP&L's right is limited to those trees that, in JCP&L's judgment, may interfere with its power lines or equipment. The instrument could not state the distinction more clearly: the "right from time to time to remove or clear and keep clear any or all trees, underbrush, structures and other obstructions upon said right of way, and such trees beyond the same as in the judgment of Grantee may interfere with or endanger said lines or appurtenances when erected."

Other provisions of the instrument cannot be read, as Sack suggests, to require a showing of necessity to permit removal of trees within the right of way. The description of the purposes for which JCP&L may enter the right of way is consistent with JCP&L's unqualified right to remove "any or all" trees and shrubbery within the right of way. It provides JCP&L "the right of entry upon [the] right of way for all of the purposes" authorized. It is JCP&L's "right of entry upon Grantor's lands adjacent to said right of way" that is limited to "the purpose of removing endangering or interfering trees and limbs." While the grantor reserved the right to farm within the area of the right of way, that right is "subject to" JCP&L's right to remove trees and underbrush from the right of way. Thus, nothing in the instrument read as a whole suggests any limitation on JCP&L's right to remove "any or all" trees from the right of way.

JCP&L's reliance on principles that apply when "'the language of the instrument . . . does not settle the matter completely'" is misplaced. Ibid. (quoting Tide-Water Pipe Co. v. Blair Holding Co., Inc., 42 N.J. 591, 604 (1964)). Fundamental principles give the holder of an easement "an implied right to do what is reasonably necessary for its complete enjoyment" provided that it acts "in [a] reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary increases in the burden upon the landowner." Ibid.; see Grammas v. Colasurdo, 48 N.J. Super. 543, 552 (App. Div. 1958) (considering scope of rights implied in an easement granting continued access to stream water). JCP&L, however, has no need to resort to rights implied, it has the express right to remove "any or all" trees ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.