In NC Statue of Frauds say easement must be in writing . sounds like there going for prescription and being a bunch of bullies . I hook up a diesel generator and move in ..
I seems that since you are not part of their industry, there is no reason why you should have any knowledge of their industry standards.
If the holder of the easement refuses even now to provide documentation of the "claimed" width, just how were you provided notice of an unspecified "claimed" width that differed from the recorded documents?
If they can't or won't provide the information (documentation) to you, and you have no notice of the "claimed" width, how can anyone hold you responsible? Let the clients attorney handle it, and if necessary, retain a good attorney for advice at this point.
That's funny Carl cause that's exactly what I told them!
That's my question exactly Brian. Since when are surveyors supposed to know any transmission line "industry standard"?
> Facts:
>
> Title search performed by attorney reveals a 100' electric utility right of way....I find the very same in my research. No additional right of way found anywhere on record.
>
> 100' right of way surveyed on ground and power pole locations used to center properly, the 1928 original survey line unable to be located with any certainty.
>
> Owner of right of way complains when building is constructed a few feet from right of way....claims additional 40' of right of way citing "industry standard". Claims anyone should know that were the transmission line poles to fall they would hit anything constructed nearby.
Is the electric utility a private or public entity? I'd think that the counterclaim (if the whole matter makes it past summary judgment in favor of your clients) would be that the electric utility has overburdened the easement if they are doing something in a 100 ft. wide easement that they claim cannot be safely done. They'll need to replace their poles that they consider to be unsafe with poles the height originally installed in 1928.
> That's funny Carl cause that's exactly what I told them!
:good: "great minds..." 😉
Stick by your guns (survey).
You've got several things on your side:
1. Provided documentation
2. Additional (your) research
3. Your bona fide actions of relying upon title work.
I work for several electric companies. R/W lines are R/W lines. That is where the easement starts and private property ends.
I have worked on several little "problems" like you've described. The utility company may try and intimidate people into not building near a R/W line. The courts have ruled timw and time again if a utility wants to restrict an adjoiner, they either need easement or ownership.
Sounds to me you've shown where the documented easement exists. What else can you do?
Leave it up to dogs to fight it out.
PS - I've never heard of an "industry standard" that applied to anything other than the utility company procedure.
Private entity that acts like God himself!
> Private entity that acts like God himself!
I wonder if it one of the companies owned by Koch Industries. That sounds like their modus operandi.
Read that you're also in NC... ask them how their coal-ash is doing and don't they have other things to tend to?
But, seriously.
First, shouldn't this utility have seen the drawings during the planning stage? I mean, aren't they providing power? Why didn't they say something then?
Also, I was involved with a new underground utility going in along a 100' trans. esmt. W/out too much detail, they tried to bully us out, but their language was "100-ft based on pole placement". They had no teeth outside of the aerial and the developer just put it in the ground.
Backstory, they wanted a new, iron-clad easement (fee without compensation). After it went in the ground, they just went away.
Sounds like they're toe'd in a bit more with your situation.
From reading your posts and the followups, sounds like you're good to me. Hope all goes well and swiftly.
Standards
What was the "industry standard" when the easement was conveyed?
Standards
> What was the "industry standard" when the easement was conveyed?
Exactly. It sounds as if the original line installed in the easement was probably on different poles, too, possibly with less sway in the conductors. I'd think that the electric utility has basically admitted that they are using the easement in a way that is fundamentally inconsistent with the rights they or their predecessor were granted in 1928.
The argument that they have overburdened the easement would be analogous to the case where a private road easement originally serving one or two households is attempted to be converted into the entrance road for a subdivision with hundreds of lots.
I feel your pain man. This must be something that Power Company exes have discussed among themselves.
A few years back our local co-op upgraded one of their main transmission lines. The construction crews went anywhere they wanted and tore up anything they wanted. When one landowner objected to a road being built through his Christmas tress he objected to the company CEO. The road was no where near the lines nor the power easement. The CEO told him they had a right to go anywhere and do anything anywhere they wanted on his property. The landowner asked him how wide an easement he thought they had.
"The width of our easement depends on how much power we push through the lines. When we push more power the easement automatically gets wider."
The landowner and I agreed that this logic was total BS. He sued and the company settled the damage claims.
What struck me was the total arrogance of the CEO. From what I can tell, he isn't alone in thinking power easements have magic powers over the land they cross.
Larry P
I'd tell them that you can't be held responsible for other people being idiots, and although you're sorry this is holding them up, any damages should be brought up in the lawsuit with the private utility company.
Industry standard is not law, and it seems like you have your ducks in a row. Just some idiot with the money to assume whatever they think should be right, is right.
(Although I would definitely head out myself instead of sending someone to go check the records to be absolutely certain there was no additional 40' ever conveyed.)
