This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant, Otero County Electric Cooperative (OCEC), constructed a single-phase power line along the southern boundary of a property in 1974 without consulting or obtaining consent from the property owner. The Plaintiffs purchased the property in 1986 to build a home but discovered that the power line, which OCEC claimed required a thirty-foot easement, interfered with their intended use of the property. The Plaintiffs filed a complaint in ejectment, asserting that the power line constituted a trespass.
Procedural History
- District Court of Otero County: The trial court found that OCEC had no express or prescriptive easement over the Plaintiffs' property and ordered the removal of the power line. It also permanently enjoined OCEC from further trespass.
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs: Argued that the power line constituted a trespass on their property, interfering with their intended use, and sought its removal. They contended that OCEC had no legal right to an easement.
- Defendant (OCEC): Asserted that it had a prescriptive easement for the power line based on its open, notorious, and continuous use for the statutory period. It also argued that the Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations, waiver, laches, and estoppel.
Legal Issues
- Did OCEC establish a prescriptive easement for the power line?
- Was the Plaintiffs' action in ejectment appropriate under the circumstances?
- What is the proper scope of any secondary easement for maintenance and safety?
Disposition
- The trial court's order requiring OCEC to remove the power line and enjoining further trespass was reversed.
- The case was remanded to determine the scope of OCEC's secondary easement for maintenance and safety.
Reasons
Per Minzner J. (Donnelly and Bivins JJ. concurring):
The Court found that OCEC had established a prescriptive easement for the power line itself, as its use was open, notorious, and continuous for the statutory period. However, OCEC failed to prove a prescriptive easement for the broader ten- or fifteen-foot area it claimed, as there was no evidence of open and notorious use of that specific area.
The Court held that the Plaintiffs' action in ejectment was appropriate because the power line occupied space over their property, constituting an ouster. However, the existence of a prescriptive easement precluded the removal of the line. The trial court's findings regarding the necessary clearance for safety were insufficient, and the case was remanded to determine the proper scope of the secondary easement required for maintenance and safety.
The Court emphasized that the extent of a prescriptive easement is limited to the use by which it was created and that any additional rights, such as a secondary easement for maintenance, must be supported by evidence of necessity and reasonableness.