V. Adamson, III v. Columbia Gas Transmission, LL
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00214-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999403743].. [13-2468]
Appeal: 13-2468
Doc: 30
Filed: 07/28/2014
Pg: 1 of 6
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2468
V. CASSEL ADAMSON, III,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cv-00214-HEH)
Submitted:
June 25, 2014
Decided:
July 28, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
S. Sadiq Gill, Brittany J. Berlauk, John B. Warden, IV,
DURRETTECRUMP PLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Travis A.
Sabalewski, REED SMITH LLP, Richmond, Virginia; Michael S.
Dingman, REED SMITH LLP, Falls Church, Virginia; Tillman J.
Breckenridge, REED SMITH LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-2468
Doc: 30
Filed: 07/28/2014
Pg: 2 of 6
PER CURIAM:
V.
Cassel
Adamson
III
appeals
the
district
court’s
orders granting summary judgment to Columbia Gas Transmission,
LLC (“Columbia”), and entering a declaratory judgment that the
easement on Adamson’s property is sixty feet wide.
On appeal,
Adamson challenges the weight that the district court gave to a
Virginia circuit court case interpreting the dimensions of the
same easement on Adamson’s neighbor’s property, and he asserts
that the district court did not properly consider his evidence,
which,
when
viewed
under
the
appropriate
analysis,
raised
a
genuine issue of material fact regarding the dimensions of the
easement. 1
We affirm.
“We review de novo whether the district court erred in
granting summary judgment, viewing the facts and drawing all
reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to
[the non-moving party].”
PBM Prods., LLC v. Mead Johnson & Co.,
639 F.3d 111, 119 (4th Cir. 2011).
Summary judgment is properly
granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as
1
Adamson also argues that the easement, as interpreted by
the district court, was indefinitely certain and violated the
rule against perpetuities.
We conclude that Adamson adequately
presented his claims regarding the easement’s certainty but did
not argue the rule against perpetuities in the district court.
Therefore,
we
will
not
consider
Adamson’s
rule
against
perpetuities claim for the first time on appeal.
See Muth v.
United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993).
2
Appeal: 13-2468
Doc: 30
Filed: 07/28/2014
Pg: 3 of 6
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.”
“whether
the
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
evidence
presents
a
The relevant inquiry is
sufficient
disagreement
to
require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that
one party must prevail as a matter of law.”
Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986).
Adamson
first
contends
that
the
district
court,
sitting in diversity, failed to give the appropriate weight to
an
unpublished
Virginia
decision
Supreme
Court
of
a
Virginia
refused
the
trial
court
petition
concluding that there was no reversible error.
for
when
the
appeal,
A federal court
sitting in diversity has an obligation to apply the law of the
forum state as it is interpreted by the state’s highest court.
See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938); Ellis v.
La.-Pac. Corp., 699 F.3d 778, 782 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that
law of forum state applies in diversity cases).
If the highest
state court has not addressed the issue or the law is unclear,
the
federal
court
must
“forecast
a
decision
of
the
state’s
highest court” in light of “canons of construction, restatements
of the law, treatises, recent pronouncements of general rules or
policies by the state’s highest court, well considered dicta,
and the state’s trial court decisions.”
Wells v. Liddy, 186
F.3d 505, 528 (4th Cir. 1999); see also Private Mortg. Inv.
3
Appeal: 13-2468
Doc: 30
Filed: 07/28/2014
Pg: 4 of 6
Servs., Inc. v. Hotel & Club Assocs., 296 F.3d 308, 312 (4th
Cir. 2002).
We agree with Adamson that the cases were more than
similar.
was
However, neither party claims that the district court
bound
by
the
principles
of
res
judicata
or
collateral
estoppel, and the district court was not bound by the fact that
the
Virginia
Supreme
court’s decision.
Court
refused
appeal
from
the
circuit
While a refusal of an appeal is a decision on
the merits of the case, a refusal has no precedential value
where the reason for the refusal is not apparent on the four
corners
of
the
Virginia
Supreme
Court’s
Castle, 559 S.E.2d 616, 618-21 (Va. 2002).
order.
Sheets
v.
Merely because the
Virginia Supreme Court found no reversible error does not mean
that it embraced the interpretation of Virginia law that Adamson
raised in the district court.
See id. at 619.
Moreover, there
is ample Virginia law on the construction of easements that the
district court could and did apply.
Therefore, we conclude that
the district court gave the appropriate weight to the circuit
court’s decision.
Next,
Adamson
challenges
the
district
court’s
analysis, asserting that it did not give appropriate weight to
the intent of the parties.
When construing the terms of an
express easement created by deed, Virginia courts “apply the
4
Appeal: 13-2468
Doc: 30
customary
Filed: 07/28/2014
rules
governing
Pg: 5 of 6
the
construction
of
written
documents”:
[Where] [a] deed . . . [e]xpressly create[s] an
easement but fail[s] to define specifically its
dimensions . . . and the deed language does not state
the
object
or
purpose
of
the
easement,
the
determination of the easement’s scope is made by
reference to the intention of the parties to the
grant, ascertained from the circumstances pertaining
to the parties and the land at the time of the grant.
Anderson v. Delore, 683 S.E.2d 307, 310 (Va. 2009) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
“However, if the granting language
states the object or purpose of the easement, the dimensions of
the
easement
sufficient
may
for
be
the
inferred
to
accomplishment
be
such
of
as
that
are
reasonably
object.”
Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hamlin v. Pandapas,
90 S.E.2d 829, 834 (Va. 1956).
Virginia does not require a strict hierarchy of proof
but instead evaluates multiple sources of evidence to supply the
dimensions
specified
of
in
an
the
easement
deed,
when
including
those
dimensions
evidence
of
necessary to effectuate the easement’s purpose.
court
considered
evidence
regarding
the
are
not
dimensions
The district
Columbia’s
need
in
effectuating the purpose of the easement and Adamson’s other
evidence that the width of the clearing on the easement had
historically been forty feet.
We conclude that the district
court did not err in granting summary judgment to Columbia where
5
Appeal: 13-2468
Doc: 30
Columbia’s
Filed: 07/28/2014
expert
testified
Pg: 6 of 6
that
sixty
feet
was
required
to
effectuate the purpose of the easement and Adamson offered no
rebuttal evidence, plat maps consistently depicted the easement
as
being
original
sixty
feet
grantor
wide
going
conveyed
the
back
to
property,
the
and
time
that
Adamson
had
the
no
evidence of the size of the clearing at the time the grantors
held the property.
Adamson’s other evidence did not reach the
heart of the matter and was not sufficient to raise a genuine
issue of material fact.
Therefore, the district court did not
err in entering a declaratory judgment that the easement was
fixed at sixty feet in width. 2
Accordingly,
We
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
we
affirm
argument
adequately
the
district
because
presented
in
court’s
orders.
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
We decline to consider Adamson’s argument that the
easement was insufficiently certain and susceptible to being
expanded at Columbia’s discretion because it is not necessary to
resolve the case.
The district court’s declaratory judgment
stated that the easement was sixty feet wide, and the evidence
adduced in summary judgment proceedings was sufficient to find
this fact.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?