Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC v. 23.74 Acres of Land

Summary of Facts and Issues: Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP) sought to construct an interstate natural gas pipeline and commenced a condemnation action under the federal Natural Gas Act. MVP aimed to acquire a permanent easement on 8 acres and temporary easements on 16 acres of property in Roanoke County owned by Mark Cronk. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) held a 900-acre conservation easement on Cronk's land, which included the condemned property. In 2018, the court entered an order granting MVP immediate possession of its easement. Subsequently, TNC filed for summary judgment on the proper allocation of the condemnation award between TNC and Cronk. The conservation easement had been donated to TNC by a previous landowner in 1996. The easement contained a standard termination proceeds provision based on the proportionate value of the easement compared to the land's before value, consistent with Treasury Regulation & sect;1.170A-14(g)(6). In addition, the easement included a separate provision addressing eminent domain, which called for a division of any proceeds based on the proportionate value whenever a condemnation 'abrogated' the easement's restrictions. A 1996 appraisal for deduction purposes found a before value of $930,800 and an after value of $105,000, for an easement value of $825,800, or a proportionate value of 88.72%. Cronk agreed to the 88.72% allocation to TNC for the eight acres subject to the permanent easement, but not for the 16 acres subject to the temporary easements. TNC claimed that the temporary easements temporarily 'abrogated' the conservation easement in the affected area, thus triggering the eminent domain provision. In contrast, Cronk argued that the temporary easements merely 'adversely affected' the conservation easement, which fell short of an 'abrogation.'
Holding(s): The court granted summary judgment to TNC on the eight acres subject to the permanent easement, which was not contested by Cronk. However, the court denied summary judgment with respect to the temporary easements, noting that the parties had not presented evidence as to which specific restrictions in the easement were 'abrogated' or 'adversely affected.' Thus, a genuine issue of material fact remained on the question of whether the temporary easements abrogated the conservation easement. The court looked to a legal dictionary for a definition of 'abrogate,' finding that it requires an action that effectively destroys or cancels a right—not just adversely affects it. And read in context with the termination provision, the court found that 'abrogate'means to make the restrictions of the easement impossible or impractical for its purposes.
Analysis and Notes: This case is the first time that a court has considered how the termination proceeds provision might apply to a temporary taking. Although the ultimate issue remains unresolved by the decision, easement drafter might want to consider refining their termination proceeds and eminent domain provisions to address how they will apply to temporary takings, to avoid this kind of dispute.