Yesterday, the Court of Appeals of Virginia issued a significant decision about a servient landowner’s right to relocate easements in accordance with Virginia Code § 55.1-304. In Darlene S. Smith, et al. v. Allen Creek Associates, LLC, the Court disagreed with the appellant on each issue on appeal and affirmed the decision from Nelson County Circuit Court relocating easements appurtenant to the property of the appellants. The appellants, the dominant holders, had raised three issues on appeal: 1) there was no justiciable controversy ripe for adjudication; 2) the relocation amounted to an unconstitutional taking of private property for the benefit of a private party; and 3) the circuit court misinterpreted and misapplied Virginia Code § 55.1-304.
Allen Creek Associates (ACA) owned a large parcel of land in Nelson County, Virginia, and planned to develop and build a residential community. As a part of that plan, ACA sought to relocate two easements, which had been in place for over 10 years, and served as the primary means of access for the properties owned by Darlene Smith, William Smith, and Maxine Small (the “Appellants”). ACA spent over a year trying to reach an agreement with the Appellants to relocate the easements, to no avail. Thereafter, ACA filed a petition to relocate the easements under Virginia Code § 55.1-304. After the presentation of evidence and testimony given at trial, the circuit court issued an opinion letter finding in ACA’s favor concluding that: 1) it had jurisdiction to decide the issue; 2) relying on its declaratory judgment authority, noted the controversy arose “above the level of speculation” and would “likely occur if things [we]re left to their normal course”; 3) that relocating the easements would not cause either economic damage or undue harm; 4) the relocation of the easements would not constitute a taking and would leave Appellants with all the same benefits they enjoyed before the relocation; and 5) ordered relocation of the easements.
On appeal, the Court addressed each issue raised by the Appellants.
A. ACA established that there was a justiciable controversy.
The Court found ACA established the existence of a justiciable controversy as Virginia Code § 55.1-304 permits relocation of the easement by written agreement of the parties. ACA attempted to reach an agreement with the Appellants, and when that did not pan out, petitioned the circuit court. The Court found the only thing stopping ACA from proceeding was Appellants’ refusal to enter a shared entry agreement and ACA’s only alternative was to proceed with the petition to relocate the easement. Thus, ACA established there were actual adverse claims based on present, rather than future or speculative facts.
B. The circuit court properly applied Virginia Code § 55.1-304.
While the Appellants argued the circuit court misinterpreted the statute, the Court found that the record supported the circuit court’s finding that the relocation of the easements would not cause economic damage to the Appellants, that Appellants would be able to conduct the same agricultural activities they were currently able to conduct, ACA designed its site plan with the Appellants’ agricultural equipment in mind, the new easements would be built and maintained at no cost to Appellants, the Appellants’ argument that the relocation of the easements would hamper their ability to develop the property in the future was speculative, and negated any undue hardship issues as the Court found the new easements would allow for better/expanded and safer access to the respective properties of the Appellants.
C. The evidence established that there was no taking.
While Appellants argued the circuit court’s order relocating the easements constituted an unconstitutional taking and governmental act, the Court found no taking occurred because the relocation did not adversely affect Appellants’ rights connected to the easement. The original easement granted the Appellants a right of ingress and egress and the circuit court’s order specifically indicated Appellants would enjoy the same rights over and upon the relocated easements, the relocated easements would be safer, the relocated easements would likely improve the development potential of the Appellants’ property, the relocation did not limit or inhibit Appellants’ use of their property, and Appellants were not required to build or maintain the roads in the new easements. Thus, the evidence established that a taking did not occur because the Appellants’ rights were not adversely affected.
