From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Millard v. Rea Energy Coop. Inc.

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 9, 2018
No. J-A06035-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 2018)

Opinion

J-A06035-18 No. 981 WDA 2017

04-09-2018

BRIAN & CHRISTY MILLARD, HUSBAND AND WIFE, Appellees v. REA ENERGY COOPERATIVE INC., Appellant


NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Order Entered June 19, 2017 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County
Civil Division, at No(s): 2017-1805 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E, SHOGAN, and STRASSBURGER, JJ. MEMORANDUM BY: STRASSBURGER, J.

Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

REA Energy Cooperative, Inc. (REA) appeals from the June 19, 2017 order that granted the petition for special relief in the form of a preliminary injunction filed by Brian and Christy Millard (the Millards, collectively), precluding REA from expanding its existing easement on the Millards' land beyond 30 feet. We affirm.

REA's power lines cross land owned by the Millards, which the Millards purchased in 2003. REA maintains the area surrounding the lines to keep it clear of growing tree limbs and debris, but has not substantially altered the width of the right-of-way in the time of the Millards' ownership of the property. In January 2017, REA's representative informed the Millards of REA's desire to clear trees to expand the right-of-way to 40 feet. The Millards objected, and, after attempts to reach an agreement about the removal of trees failed, the Millards filed petitions for preliminary and permanent injunctions.

The trial court held a hearing on the request for a preliminary injunction on June 16, 2017. Testimony was offered by Brian Millard; Pat McAndrew, REA's manager of engineering; and Brendan Short, a forestry supervisor for REA. The parties also offered various exhibits, including photographs of the land, easement documents, and REA documents concerning membership and by-laws.

On June 19, 2017, the trial court issued findings of fact and an order. In the former, it determined that: (1) the current width of the right-of-way is 30 feet (15 feet on either side of the line of poles supporting the power lines); (2) the Millards seek to prevent REA from expanding the easement to 40 feet (an additional five feet on each side); and (3) the Millards presented sufficient evidence to obtain a preliminary injunction. Findings of Fact, 6/16/2017. Accordingly, the trial court granted the Millards' petition to prevent REA from expanding the width of the easement unless a written agreement of the parties or court order provides otherwise, and ordered that REA's maintenance of the current 30-foot-wide easement must be "performed as minimally invasive as practicable." Order, 6/19/2017.

REA timely filed a notice of appeal, and both REA and the trial court complied with Pa.R.A.P. 1925. REA presents this Court with two questions: (1) whether the trial court erred in concluding that the Millards are likely to prevail on the merits of their claim based upon (a) the easement agreement which REA requires its members to enter into, and (b) McAndrew's testimony that a 40-foot-wide easement is reasonable and necessary; and (2) whether the trial court erred in failing to find that granting the preliminary injunction will cause substantial harm to REA and the individuals who obtain electrical service through REA's lines. REA's Brief at 5-6.

[R]eview of a trial court's order granting or denying preliminary injunctive relief is highly deferential. This highly deferential standard of review states that in reviewing the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction, an appellate court is directed to examine the record to determine if there were any apparently reasonable grounds for the action of the court below.
Warehime v. Warehime , 860 A.2d 41, 46 (Pa. 2004) (internal citations, footnotes, and quotation marks omitted). Our scope of review is plenary. Id. at 46 n.7.

With these standards of review in mind, we have reviewed the certified record and the parties' briefs. This review has revealed that the trial court's September 12, 2017 opinion adequately addresses and properly rejects the issues REA raises on appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/12/2017, at 8-10 (discussing evidence that showed the easement historically has been 30 feet wide; that McAndrew, who opined that a 40-foot-wide easement was necessary, was not credible in light of credible evidence that there had never been a problem with the lines before and there were presently no dead or dying trees threatening the lines; and that the Millards never saw, let alone executed, an easement agreement that provided a 40-foot-wide right-of-way); id. at 11 (noting that the record did not support REA's contention that granting the injunction would substantially harm its customers, as with the injunction at 30 feet wide REA was still permitted to clear parts of trees that had grown into the power lines, and there was no indication that the risk of a tree on the Millards' property damaging a power line would be decreased by widening the right-of-way by five feet on each side).

Because the trial court has offered reasonable grounds for its decision, REA has failed to convince us that the trial court erred and it is entitled to relief. We therefore adopt the trial court's opinion in affirming the June 19, 2017 order. The parties shall attach a copy of the trial court's September 12, 2017 opinion to this memorandum in the event of further proceedings.

Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 4/9/2018

Image materials not available for display.


Summaries of

Millard v. Rea Energy Coop. Inc.

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Apr 9, 2018
No. J-A06035-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 2018)
Case details for

Millard v. Rea Energy Coop. Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BRIAN & CHRISTY MILLARD, HUSBAND AND WIFE, Appellees v. REA ENERGY…

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Apr 9, 2018

Citations

No. J-A06035-18 (Pa. Super. Ct. Apr. 9, 2018)