Powerline prescriptive easement; Whether a vegetation-management plan exceeded the scope of the alleged easement; Trespass-nuisance; Takings & Fourth Amendment claims; Lansing Board of Water & Light (BWL)

The court held that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant-BWL “has a prescriptive easement, whether its vegetation-management plan exceeds the scope of the alleged easement, and whether a trespass-nuisance arose for purposes of abatement relative to the alleged service-drop hazard.” It also held “that plaintiffs stated a valid claim for trespass-nuisance, but only in regard to the claim for equitable relief.” Thus, it found the trial court erred in granting BWL summary disposition on these issues. But it affirmed the dismissal of the Takings and Fourth Amendment claims. The case concerned power lines belonging to BWL “that traverse plaintiffs’ property and BWL’s planned efforts to keep those lines free and clear of tree branches and vegetation.” BWL argued that it was “entitled to a presumption that its prescriptive easement arose by written grant.” The court found that there was “no specific evidence of permission being granted to BWL and, further, there is evidence that the power lines at issue were reconfigured or moved at least one time in the past, which may also bear on the issue whether BWL can establish its claim of a prescriptive easement.” In sum, as to the scope of the easement, the court concluded “that there exists a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether implementing BWL’s particular vegetation-management plan is reasonably necessary for the beneficial use and enjoyment of the assumed prescriptive easement while not materially and unreasonably increasing the burden on the servient estate nor imposing a new or additional burden on the servient estate.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.