Heydon v. MediaOne of Se. Mich., Inc. - 275 Mich. App. 267, 739 N.W.2d 373 (2007)

Rule:

A commercial, exclusive easement in gross acquired by prescription can be apportioned unless contrary to the terms of the servitude, or unless the division unreasonably increases the burden on the servient estate.

Facts:

The matter arose from a dispute over whether defendant Mediaone of Southeast Michigan, Inc., acquired the right to enter upon plaintiffs Peter N. Heydon and Henrietta A. Heydon’s land to place and maintain cable television fiber-optic lines on already existing utility poles that an electric company utilized to transmit electricity. The electric company entered into an agreement with the defendant allowing the defendant to place and maintain lines on the same utility poles. The plaintiffs filed the complaint alleging a continuing common-law trespass and seeking recovery for damage to their land under MCL 600.2919 when they discovered that defendant was stringing cable lines upon their property without the plaintiffs' permission. The circuit court granted in favor of the defendant cable television company in the plaintiffs' action. 

Issue:

Did the defendant have the right to use the electric company’s easement on the plaintiff’s land?

Answer:

Yes. The court affirmed the judgment.

Conclusion:

The court held that contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, a commercial, exclusive easement in gross acquired by prescription could be apportioned. Further, the apportionment of the easement in the instant case did not materially or unreasonably increase the burden on the servient estate. The court then ruled that the trial court properly found that the Cable Communications Policy Act, 47 U.S.C.S. § 541 et seq., did not violate the takings clause of U.S. Const. amend. V and Const. 1963, art 10, § 2. 47 U.S.C.S. § 541(a)(2)(C) sufficiently addressed the problem of the prohibition against the taking of private property without just compensation.