Case Law: Gladchun v. Eramo

Gladchun v. Eramo, Supreme Court of Vermont, 2023 VT 5 (2023) discusses the scope of easements as interpreted by language in a deed; in this case specifically whether the installation of underground utilities fits within the definition of "ingress and egress."

The facts of Gladchun v. Eramo are that the Eramos, defendants, owned Lot 10 which was benefitted by a right of way over Lots 7 and 8, owned by Gladchuns, plaintiffs. Eramos granted AT&T a right in Lot 10 for a cell tower, including a right to install underground utility lines in the right of way area. Gladchuns brought suit to stop Eramos and AT&T from installing the underground utilities in the right of way. Gladchuns argument was the deed granting the right of way was only for “ingress and egress,” not utilities. The deed in question contained the following language regarding the right of way:

"[A] right of way 30 feet in width leading westerly from said North Hollow Road first through Lot 8 and then through Lot 7 as shown on said LaRose survey map to a point at the northerly end of the conveyed premises. Said right of way follows the course of an existing wood road and the center line of said right of way is indicated by an intermittent line on said LaRose survey map. Said right of way is for the purpose of ingress and egress to and from the conveyed premises." Id. at 1287.

The lower court concluded that the deed granting the right-of-way for ingress and egress was unambiguous and therefore did not limit a utility company from installing utility lines under the right-of-way. The lower court came to its decision based on a prior case law, VTRE Investments, LLC v. MontChilly, Inc. 2020 VT 77 (2020) (which held that an easement that was clearly intended to create a right of way for ingress and egress, but is otherwise general in nature, was to be read to include a right of way for a utility easement). The lower court also noted that there is a comment in § 4.10 of the Restatement (Third) of Property to determine "what is included in a general right of reasonable ingress and egress" and ultimately decided that installation of underground utilities was a reasonable use of the right of way.  The lower court also noted that "§ 4.10's rationale that normal advances in technology can permissibly increase 'the manner, frequency, and intensity' of uses over time" Id. at 1288 (internal citations omitted).

The Supreme Court of Vermont disagreed with the lower court and the lower courts reliance on and application of a previous Vermont Supreme Court case, VTRE Investments, LLC v. MontChilly, Inc. The Supreme Court here also firmly turns away from the Restatement, which has been accepted as law in many other jurisdictions. The Supreme Court concluded "that the deed was unambiguous as to the right-of-way that the deed did not express more than the plain and ordinary meaning of "ingress and egress" which do not include installing underground utilities." Id. at 1287.

On appeal, the Supreme Court focused on the fact that the lower court did not define "ingress and egress" in its holding, which the Supreme Court defined as "plain meaning of the words ingress and egress convey a right for defendants to enter and leave Lot 10 using the right-of-way. Nothing we can discern in the definitions of either word individually, or in combination, denote a right to install underground utilities." Id. at 1289.

The lower court indicated that the right of way was "general" in nature, however the Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the deed describes the right of way as "being 30 feet wide and locates its course by reference to a survey." Therefore, “[b]ecause the deed both defines and limits the right of way it is not what this Court has previously described as a ‘general’ right of way." Id. at 1289-90. The Supreme Court indicated that the lower court’s decision in VTRE Investments, LLC v. MontChilly, Inc. was wrongly applied, and that the term "general" did not necessarily speak to the scope of the easement. The Court emphasized its point in the current case by pointing to the State’s Constitution and the historic importance of property rights. As a result, the Court took a narrow approach to expanding rights.

The case was remanded to determine whether Lot 10 was benefited by an easement by necessity that would permit AT&T to install the underground utilizes to service the communications tower.

As a more recent Vermont Supreme Court decision, this decision is important to know and understand in the context of reviewing, and drafting, easements, and, of course, when insuring beneficial easements or in solar energy transactions. The Court made it clear how it will interpret language in a deed thereby putting people on notice that if an easement is meant to include something beyond the "plain language" then it should explicitly be granted. This case concludes that just because someone has a right of way to access their lot doesn’t necessarily mean they have a right to run utilities along it to serve the house or structures.