Hazard Coal Corporation v. Eileen Knight ( 2010 )

RENDERED : SEPTEMBER 23, 2010
TO BE PUBLISHED
uyrrmr (~vurf of "gftru
2008-SC-000735-DG
0Q``1
;
HAZARD COAL CORPORATION ; WHITAKER APPELLANTS
COAL CORPORATION ; PERRY COUNTY COAL
CORPORATION ; LOCUST GROVE, INC . ; AND
TECO COAL CORPORATION
ON REVIEW FROM COURT OF APPEALS
V. CASE NO . 2007-CA-001712-MR
PERRY CIRCUIT COURT NO. 02-CI-00499
LARRY J . KNIGHT AND EILEEN KNIGHT, APPELLEES
AND, LARRY E . KNIGHT AND MARY KNIGHT
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE VENTERS
REVERSING
Appellants Hazard Coal Corporation, Whitaker Coal Corporation, Perry
County Coal Corporation, Locust Grove, Inc., and TECO Coal Corporation
appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals that reversed a judgment of the
Perry Circuit Court on the grounds that the Perry Circuit Court improperly
conducted a bench trial in contravention of Appellees' (Larry J . Knight, Eileen
Knight, Larry E. Knight, and Mary Knight) demand for a jury trial in the
proceedings . For the reasons explained below, we agree with the Court of
Appeals' conclusion that Appellees had not waived their right to a jury trial.
However, we further determine that Appellants were entitled to summary
judgment dismissing Appellees' complaint. Accordingly, we reverse the Court
of Appeals and remand the case to the Perry Circuit Court for entry of
summary judgment in favor of Appellants, and dismissal of Appellees' claims .
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellees are the owners of two contiguous tracts of surface property
located on Fourseam Branch in Perry County. Appellants collectively are the
owners of the minerals underlying the tracts and all of the rights and privileges
thereunto granted by way of a severance deed filed in 1910 (hereinafter
"Severance Deed") which severed the coal, minerals, and mineral products from
the surface property.
In connection with their coal mining operations in the area, Appellants
use and maintain a three-mile long coal haul road, part of which runs across
the surface property owned by Appellees. The road runs from Kentucky
Highway 1096 to the Davidson Branch facility, which is a site used by
Appellants for moving their coal through the distribution chain. This facility
includes a tipple, coal processing machinery, and a unit train loading facility to
load coal onto railroad cars. It is undisputed that, in order to transport coal
into the facility, Appellants use the road to haul coal mined from other, non-
adjacent mineral tracts in the area; to haul supplies into the facility; and to
haul refuse out of the facility. It is the use of the road for these purposes, as
opposed to its use to transport coal extracted from beneath Appellees' tracts or
to remove coal as necessary from adjacent tracts that is the basis of this
dispute.
Believing that Appellants were impermissibly using the coal haul road,
on September 30, 2002, Appellees filed a complaint in Perry Circuit Court
alleging trespass by Appellants . More specifically, Appellees alleged that
Appellants :
wrongfully entered upon and mined coal and hauled other coal
across plaintiff[s]' land, hauled rock, sludge, and waste from other
land across plaintiffs' land, and erected power lines upon and
across plaintiffs' land, otherwise used and utilized plaintiffs' land,
or caused others to do so, from plaintiffs' land . . . excavated the
land and destroyed and removed timber there from, all owned by
the plaintiffs, without right, title, claim, interest or authority, and
without consent or permission from the plaintiffs, and thereby
damaged, destroyed and wasted said land .'
In addition, Appellants specifically demanded a jury trial upon all issues .
In their respective answers, Appellants denied trespassing upon
Appellees' surface property and asserted that they had the right to use the road
in the manner complained of pursuant to the rights and privileges granted to
them in the Severance Deed. Among other things, Appellants also pled as an
affirmative defense an easement by prescription entitling them to employ the
road as used. Like Appellees, all of Appellants except for Hazard Coal
Corporation demanded a jury trial in their initial pleading.
The trial court denied the parties' motions for summary judgment, and a
jury trial was scheduled . However, at a pretrial conference a few days before
the scheduled trial date, the trial court sua sponte announced that it would
conduct a bench trial on all issues except damages because a jury would be
unable to understand the case . Appellees did not thereafter challenge the trial
' Only the claim relating to the coal haul road is before us.
3
court's decision to have a bench trial . They appeared for the bench trial,
announced ready, and fully participated in the proceeding .
Following the bench trial the trial court found "by a preponderance of
evidence" that Hazard Coal had a prescriptive easement encompassing the coal
haul road . Because of its ruling upon the prescriptive easement issue, the trial
court found it unnecessary to address Appellants' argument that the Severance
Deed conferred them with the right to use the road . In their motion to alter,
amend, or vacate, the Appellees argued, among other things, that the trial
court denied them the jury trial upon all issues which they had demanded in
their complaint. The motion was denied.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court had
improperly denied the Appellants' right to trial by jury. Therefore it did not
reach the merits of the prescriptive easement issue; nor, did it address the
parties' competing interpretations of the Severance Deed's language .
We granted discretionary review to examine whether a party, after
demanding a jury trial, may waive that right merely by failing to object to the
trial court's sua sponte declaration that it would hear the case by bench trial.
Upon review, we agree with Appellees that the failure to conduct a jury trial
was error. However, we further conclude that Appellants were entitled to
summary judgment upon their claim that the Severance Deed entitles them to
use the road to transport coal mined from non-adjacent tracts to the Davidson
Branch facility and to, transport refuse away from the facility.
II . APPELLEES DID NOT WAIVE THEIR RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL
Appellants first contend that the Court of Appeals erred in its conclusion
that Appellees did not waive their right to a jury trial after initially demanding
one in their original complaint. They argue that waiver of that right occurred
when Appellees did not object to the trial court's announcement that it would
cancel the jury trial and have a bench trial, and thereafter acquiesced to the
bench trial by appearing, announcing ready, and fully participating in that
proceeding. They contend that Appellees would have welcomed a favorable
verdict at the bench trial, but only after losing at trial, did they object and seek
a "second bite at the apple ."
A. The Trial Court's Ruling
Ajury trial was initially scheduled for February 24, 2006 . However,
during a pretrial conference on February 20, 2006, the trial court announced,
sua sponte, that it would conduct a bench trial on all issues except damages .
The court explained :
[T]here is no way that a jury can understand that part of it to even
answer the questions, you all have not been able to even formulate
the questions for them to answer. Therefore what I am going to do
is this ; I am going to have Friday a bench trial on the issue of
whether or not that deed . . . construction of the deed. I'm gonna
hear all evidence on the use . . . . Then I'm gonna decide whether
or not . . . the actions of the company have . . . violated . . . the
conditions of the deed . . . . I've got to hear all the facts and then
I've got to apply the facts to my construction of the deed. I do not
think a jury can do that. You all have convinced me of that . . . .
Then if I decide one way then we will have a jury trial on damages ;
if I decide the other way we won't . . . .
I may be wrong, and I'm sorry if I'm not following the precedent of
the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but you know, you got to realize
I'm human, I'm trying to follow it . . . . You know cite me
something in the law that says I have to be right all the time .
The court further stated:
. . . . Do you all understand what I've done today and what we are
going to do? Put on every bit of proof, like I say Mr. Polly [counsel
for the Appellees] . I may decide against you, I may decide against
them, but I'm going to hear every bit of the evidence.
. . . . We will resume at 9 :00 o'clock Friday morning to have all
your proof in. It will be a bench trial regarding the construction of
the deed and usage .
Thus, the trial court left no doubt that the bench trial would be in lieu of
a jury trial upon all issues, except upon the issue of damages if Appellees
prevailed . Significantly, it is clear from the record that the trial court knew of
the parties' demands for a jury trial, but persisted with its decision .
B . Discussion
"The ancient mode of trial by jury shall be held sacred, and the right
thereof remain inviolate, subject to such modifications as may be authorized by
this Constitution ." Ky. Const. § 7 . Our Constitution designates no other right
as one which "shall be held sacred ." This right is incorporated into CR 38.01,
which states as follows : "The right of trial by jury as declared by the
Constitution of Kentucky or as given by a statute of Kentucky shall be
preserved to the parties inviolate." See also Meyers v. Chapman Printing Co.,
Inc., 840 S.W .2d 814, 819 (Ky. 1992) (The Kentucky Constitution, Sec . 7,
preserves "the ancient mode of trial by jury." A "civil cause of action" for
"damages sustained" is the classical textbook paradigm of an action at law
wherein "[t]he constitution guarantees a trial by jury in cases of this
character.")
CR 38 .04 provides that the failure to properly demand a jury trial acts as
a waiver of the right, but also imposes, once the right is demanded, a
significant restraint on the withdrawal of the demand. The rule states: "The
failure of a party to serve a demand as required by this rule and to file it as
required by Rule 5 .05[2] constitutes a waiver by him of trial by jury. A demand
for trial by jury made as herein provided may not be withdrawn without the
consent of the parties."3 (emphasis added) .
Similarly, CR 39 .01, imposes a strict, and unambiguous, procedural
barrier to the waiver or withdrawal of a jury trial demand once having been
made:
When trial by jury has been demanded as provided in Rule 38, the
action shall be designated upon the docket as a jury action. The
trial of all issues so demanded shall be by jury, unless (a) the
parties or their attorneys of record, by written stipulation filed with
the court or by an oral stipulation made in open court and entered in
the record, consent to trial by the court sitting without a jury, or (b)
the court upon motion or of its own initiative finds that a right of
.trial by jury of some or all of the issues does not exist under the
Constitution or Statutes of Kentucky .
(emphasis added) 4
2 CR 5 .05 addresses the general rules for the filing of a complaint and other pleadings
and papers with the office of the clerk.
3 In using the plural "parties," the rule mandates that if any of the parties demands a
jury trial, then all parties must agree to a waiver of the demand. In this vein, we
note that all parties to the proceeding, excepting Hazard Coal, demanded a jury
trial . Thus, it is not only the Appellees' demand that is at issue .
4 There is no allegation that section (b) of the rule applies under the facts of this case.
"The constitutional term ``inviolate' means that the right to trial by jury is
unassailable . Henceforth, legislation and civil rules of practice shall be
construed strictly and observed vigilantly in favor of the right and is not to be
abrogated arbitrarily by the courts . The constitutional right to a jury trial
cannot be annulled, obstructed, impaired, or restricted by legislative or judicial
action ." Steelvest, Inc . v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 908 S .W.2d 104, 108
(Ky. 1995) . Moreover, as with statutes, we interpret the civil rules in
accordance with their plain language . Lanham v. Commonwealth, 171 S .W.3d
14, 21 fn 9 (Ky. 2005) .
The mandate of CR 39 .01 is unmistakable in its clarity . Its plain and
forthright language affords no other construction but that once a proper
demand for a jury trial has been made, the trial shall be by jury unless there is
either a written stipulation filed with the court, or an oral stipulation of waiver
made in open court. "In common or ordinary parlance, and in its ordinary
signification, the term ``shall' is a word of command and . . . must be given a
compulsory meaning." Black's Law Dictionary 1233 (5th ed. 1979) . "Shall
means shall." Vandertoll v. Commonwealth, 110 S.W .3d 789, 795-796 (Ky.
2003) .
Here, there is no dispute that Appellees properly demanded a jury trial in
their complaint initiating the lawsuit; that they did not file a written stipulation
with the court waiving their right to a jury trial; and that they did not orally
stipulate in open court that they waived their right to a jury trial. As such, the
result dictated by our civil rules could not be more certain - Appellees did not
waive their right to a jury trial.
Appellants support their argument that the Appellees' silence in the face
of the trial court's ruling waived the jury trial demand by directing our
attention to Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Taylor, 637
S .W.2d 663 (Ky. App. 1982) (overruled on other grounds by Louisville and
Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer Dist . v. Bischoff, 248 S.W.3d 533 (Ky.
2007)) . However, Taylor is distinguishable from this matter, because in that
case the plaintiff, L 8s M Oil and Gas Company (whose successor in interest,
Equitable, was making the argument on appeal) had moved for a bench trial,
and signed off on the order granting -the motion. The relevant discussion from
Taylor is as follows:
Constitutional rights are assurances given to each citizen of this
Commonwealth that his interests will not be affected without
specifically delineated safeguards . These rights are personal to
each of us and cannot be circumvented or cast aside through the
whims or caprices of others . However, this is not to say that
should one wish not to avail himself of the protection which they
offer, that he may not of his own volition choose affirmatively to
deny their application . To state otherwise would be to reject the
essence of freedom of choice upon which this nation was founded.
Consideration, therefore, must be given to whether under the
immediate facts there was an affirmative waiver of § 242's mandate
of jury determination of damages . The relevant Ohio Circuit Court
Order states in its entirety: "On the Plaintiffs Motion, these cases
are set for trial before the Court on Monday, March 12, 1979 . This
the 2 day of March, 1979 ." (Emphasis in original added.)
Appellant, the successor interest to Plaintiff below, suggests that
the Order was prepared by Defendants (appellees herein) and that
no motion in support of the Order from Plaintiff appears in the
record . Indeed the Order does reflect preparation by Defendants,
but it also clearly recites that it was upon Plaintiff's motion and
bears the "Have Seen" signature of Plaintiffs counsel .
No challenge to the wording of the Order was heard . Furthermore,
on March 12 Plaintiff participated without objection in the hearing
before the Court on the damage matter. Allegiance must be given
to the time-worn but still vital axiom that a Court speaks through
its records . There is not an iota of evidence in the record before
this Court to indicate that such should not apply in this instance .
The conclusion must be reached that Plaintiff below affirmatively
waived its right to jury determination of damages .
Id. at 665 .
Thus in Taylor, according to the wording of the order, the bench trial was
effectively initiated by the party claiming a violation of its right to a jury trial,
and counsel for opposing party physically signed off on the order setting a
bench trial without objection. In this respect, there was a written stipulation
in the record waiving the plaintiff's right to a trial by jury. Accordingly, we are
unpersuaded that Taylor is controlling under the facts of this case .
Appellants also cite Jones v. Gardner, 262 Icy. 812, 91 S .W.2d 520, 523
(1936), for the principle that "a party taken by surprise during the trial must
act promptly and will not be allowed to take a chance of getting a verdict, and
then if he loses demand a new trial ." While this rule remains a vital and
important principle, nevertheless, we again note that the error at issue here is
of constitutional dimensions . We have previously stated "[thhere is a
presumption against the waiver of constitutional rights, and for a waiver to be
effective it must be clearly established that there was ``an intentional
relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.' Parson v.
10
Commonwealth, 144 S .W.3d 775, 792 (Ky. 2004) : 5 As demonstrated by our
discussion, here, this constitutional standard for waiver is not met.
It is clear from the record that the trial court was aware of Appellees'
demand for a jury trial. There was no necessity to bring the issue to the trial
court's attention in order to preserve the argument . In this vein, we further
note that our holding addresses the case where the trial court is, from the
record, clearly aware of the jury demand, but chooses to proceed otherwise.
In summary, CR 38 and CR 39 require that once a jury trial has been
demanded, there are only two ways the demand can be waived: by written
stipulation appearing in the record ; or by oral stipulation in open court. As
proper waiver under neither method occurred in this case, the Court of Appeals
properly held that Appellees did not waive their right to have all issues tried by
a jury.
III . THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES GRANTED UNDER THE SEVERANCE
DEED ENTITLED APPELLANTS TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Since we have affirmed the Court of Appeals upon the jury trial issue,
Appellants ask us to address the argument that the trial court erred by failing
to grant summary judgment dismissing Appellees' claims of trespass, on the
grounds that Appellants' use of the road was authorized by, and in accordance
with, the Severance Deed.
5 (quoting Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S . 458, 464, (1938)) . See also Barber v. Page, 390
U .S . 719, 725 (1968) (also applying Zerbst's definition of a waiver) ; Illinois v. Allen,
397 U.S. 337, 343 (1970) (citing Zerbst ).
As further explained below, we conclude that there are no genuine issues
of material fact concerning Appellants' disputed use of the road in its coal
operations, 6 and that the sole issue remaining is therefore one of deed
construction . The nature and extent of Appellants' actual use of the road is
not disputed . As further explained below, by our interpretation, Appellants'
use of the road is authorized by the rights and privileges granted to them under
the Severance Deed. Pursuant to the language of the deed, Appellants are
entitled to transport coal mined from non-adjacent tracts across the coal-haul
road to the Davidson Branch facility; to move materials across the road to
supply the facility; and to transport refuse from the facility. We therefore
conclude that Appellants were entitled to summary judgment upon the issue,
and remand for entry of an order dismissing Appellees' claims with prejudice .
"The general rule under CR 56 .03 is that a denial of a motion for
summary judgment is, first, not appealable because of its interlocutory nature
and, second, is not reviewable on appeal from a final judgment where the
question is whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact."
Transportation Cabinet, Bureau ofHighways, Com. ofKy. v. Leneave, 751
S .W .2d 36, 37 (Ky. App. 1988) . There is, however, an exception to this rule
that applies where: "(1) the facts are not in dispute, (2) the only basis of the
ruling is a matter of law, (3) there is a denial of the motion, and (4) there is an
6 The parties do disagree on the length and continuity of the use. While this would be
relevant to summary judgment upon the issue of whether the Appellants have a
prescriptive easement, it is not relevant upon the issue of whether the deed
authorizes the disputed use .
12
entry of a final judgment with an appeal therefrom ." Id . Because requirements
for the foregoing exception to the general rule are met in this case, we choose
to, as the parties have requested, review the trial court's denial of Appellants'
motion for summary judgment .
In support of its position that it was entitled to summary judgment based
upon construction of the Severance Deed, Appellants cite us to the following
language from the deed:
[The grantor does hereby sell and convey unto the grantee] . . . . the
exclusive rights-of-way for any and all Railroads and ways and
pipelines that may hereafter be located on said property by the
"Grantee," its successors or assigns, under authority of said
"Grantee," or assigns, in, under, concerning or appurtenant to the
hereinafter described tract of land, together with the right to enter
upon said lands, use and operate the same, and surface thereof
and to make use of and for this purpose divert water courses
thereon in any and every manner that might be deemed necessary
or convenient for mining and removing therefrom, or otherwise
utilizing the product of said minerals, and for the transportation
therefrom of said articles, and the right to use ofsuch, as well as for
the removal of the products taken out of any other land owned or
hereafter acquired by the "Grantee. "
(emphasis added) .
We first note that, "[t]he construction and interpretation of a contract,
including questions regarding ambiguity, are questions of law to be decided by
the court." First Commonwealth Bank of Prestonsburg v. West, 55 S.W.3d 829,
835 (Ky. App. 2000) . Accordingly, our review on appeal is de novo, without
deference to the trial court's legal conclusions . Id. ; see also Spot-A-Pot, Inc. v.
State Resources Corp., 278 S.W.3d 158, 161 (Ky. App. 2009) . "'[I]n the absence
of ambiguity a written instrument will be enforced strictly according to its
13
terms,' and a court will interpret the contract's terms by assigning language its
ordinary meaning and without resort to extrinsic evidence." Frear v. P. T.A.
Industries, Inc., 103 S .W.3d 99, 106 (Ky. 2003) (citations omitted) . "A contract
is ambiguous if a reasonable person would find it susceptible to different or
inconsistent interpretations." Cantrell Supply, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 94
S .W.3d 381, 385 (Ky. App. 2002) (citation omitted) .
We further note these additional general principles that are applicable to
the Severance Deed:
In the absence of further rights expressly conveyed or reserved, the
surface rights of a mineral owner are limited to so much of the
surface and such uses thereof as are reasonably necessary
properly to mine and carry away the minerals. Where the grantee
of minerals owns adjoining land through or over which it is
practicable for the grantee to mine and remove the minerals
granted, the grantee is not entitled to use the surface over the
minerals for mining purposes because it is more convenient for the
grantee .
A mineral owner may not use the surface owned by the grantor in
producing, marketing, or in any way handling the mineral
produced on other or adjacent lands, unless and except to the
extent that such rights may be given by the grant. Thus, a mineral
owner generally has no right to use the surface of one tract to aid
in the mining of another tract, even though such owner owns the
minerals under both.
Surface rights incident to mining may be expressly granted in the
conveyance of the mineral rights . Where specified surface rights
are expressly granted or reserved in connection with the mineral
rights, the intention of the parties, as determined by the general
rules of construction, govern in determining the extent of the
mineral owner's rights and liability for compensation for the use of
the surface. Where certain surface rights are specifically granted,
14
the court may not add to such enumerated rights other rights not
specifically set forth in the conveyance .
58 C .J .S . Mines and Minerals § 214 (2009) (footnotes omitted) .
Moreover, "[u]nder a deed such as this, the grantee may make a.
reasonable use of all of the rights conferred upon it by the terms of the deed
without incurring liability for damages, but it may make no use of the surface
that is unauthorized without being responsible therefor." Pike-Floyd Coal Co. v.
Nunnery, 232 Ky. 805, 24 S .W.2d 614, 615 (1929) . Further, a severance deed
"should be construed most strongly against grantors in such deeds, and in
favor of the grantees. But the rule can be invoked only when there is an
ambiguity in the deed." Id. (citations omitted) .
Upon examination of the applicable provisions of the deed, we conclude
that Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Consol ofKentucky, Inc., 15 S .W . 3d
727 (Ky. 2000), is dispositive . In Columbia Gas, we construed the following
language contained in a 1903 coal severance deed :
[The grantor conveys to the grantee] the exclusive rights-of-way for
any and all railroads, tram roads, haul roads and other ways, pipe
lines, telephone and telegraph lines that may hereafter be located
on said land by the parties of the first part, their heirs,
representatives or assigns, or by the party of the second part, its
successors or assigns, or by any person or corporation with or
without the authority of either of said parties, their, or its, heirs,
representatives, successors or assigns . . . .
Id. at 729 (emphasis added) .
In Columbia Gas, we noted that this language was typical of broad form
deeds,? commonly known as "Northern form" deeds, used at the time. The
operative language of the Columbia Gas deed reads : "[The grantor conveys to the
grantee] the exclusive rights-of-way for any and all railroads, tram roads, haul
roads and other ways . . . ." Comparison with the deed under present
consideration discloses that the language is virtually identical : "[The grantor
does hereby sell and convey unto the grantee] . . . the exclusive rights-of-way for
any and all Railroads and ways . . . . "g While there are slight wording
differences between the two deeds, as relevant to our review, the important
point is that both conveyed "exclusive rights-of-way for any and all . . . ways ."
Thus, the deed language analyzed in Columbia Gas is functionally
indistinguishable from the language in the Severance Deed before us.
As explained in Columbia Gas, this broad form language grants the
mineral holder full "easement-granting power with respect to the surface
estate," which is tantamount to "complete ownership of the surface as concerns
7 The Broad Form Deed Amendment, Ky. Const. § 19(2), which was approved in 1988,
is not applicable to the present situation. "Section 19(2) was intended and should
be applied herein only to prohibit strip mining operations conducted pursuant to
broad form deeds in the absence of the surface owner's consent." Karst-Robbins
Coal Company, Inc. v. Arch ofKentucky, Inc., 964 S .W .2d 419, 425 (Ky. App. 1997) .
8 In Elk Horn Coal Corp. v. Kentucky-West Virginia Gas Co., 317 S.W.2d 472, 474 (Ky.
1958) the Northern form deed language is stated as follows : " * * exclusive rights-
of-way for any and all railroads, tram roads, haul roads and other ways, pipe lines,
telephone and telegraph lines that may hereafter be located on said land by the
parties of the first part, their heirs, representatives or assigns, or by the party of the
second part, its successors or assigns, or by any person or corporation with or
without the authority of either of said parties, their, or its heirs, representatives,
successors or assigns, and also the right to maintain, keep in repair and operate
the same and said railroads, tram roads, haul roads, ways, pipe lines, telephone
and telegraph lines, * * *[ .]"'
16
right-of-way uses[ .]" Id. at 729-730 . Our full analysis upon the point was as
follows:
Citing Harry Caudill, Theirs Be the Power. The Moguls of Eastern
Kentucky (U. of Ill . Press 1983) and Carolyn Clay Turner and
Carolyn Hay Traum, John C .C . Mayo Cumberland Capitalist
(Pikeville College Press 1983), Appellant asserts that Northern Coal
and Coke Company used its Northern form of deed to acquire
mineral interests in hundreds of thousands of acres of land in
eastern Kentucky . On three occasions, our predecessor court was
called upon to interpret the meaning of the so-called "easement-
granting" clause quoted above. On each occasion, the clause was
held to convey to the grantee of the mineral estate the easement-
granting power with respect to the surface estate .
In Cornett v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 298 Ky . 95, 182 S .W .2d
230 (1944), the owner of the surface estate sought to enjoin the
grantee of a Northern form deed from granting an easement to a
railroad company for the construction of a commercial railroad line
across the surface of the property. The surface owner asserted
that the easement-granting clause only pertained to easements
appurtenant to the mineral estate, i .e ., those easements necessary
for the mining and removal of coal or other minerals from beneath
the surface of the property. The Court held that the easement-
granting clause contained no such restriction and that the owner
of the mineral estate possessed the sole power to grant a railroad
right-of-way easement across the surface estate.
In Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Quillen, Ky., 242 S .W.2d 95 (1951), the
railroad sought to condemn a right-of-way across property severed
by a Northern form deed . The issue was whether the
condemnation proceeds were payable to the surface owner or to
the owner of the mineral estate. It was held that the owner of the
mineral estate, as owner of the easement-granting power, was
entitled to the proceeds . (During the pendency of the litigation, the
railroad purchased the right-of-way from the holder of the mineral
estate, so the upshot was that the railroad was entitled to
repayment of the condemnation proceeds which it had previously
paid into court.)
In Elk Horn Coal Corp. v. Kentucky-West Virginia Gas Co., Ky., 317
S.W.2d 472 (1957), the issue was whether the owner of the mineral
rights to forty-eight separate tracts of land could enjoin the
construction of a pipeline across the surface of those tracts . The
17
plaintiff had acquired its interest in some of the tracts by Northern
form deeds and in others by deeds which did not contain an
easement-granting clause . The plaintiff was held entitled to relief
with respect to the tracts acquired by Northern form deeds, but not
with respect to tracts acquired by other forms of deed. The opinion
had this to say about the easement-granting clause in the
Northern form deeds :
The Cornett and Quillen cases clearly uphold the claim
of the coal corporation here that the mineral deeds
gave it complete control over rights of way, and
negative the contention of the gas company that the
mineral deeds conveyed only appurtenant easements .
The simple answer to this argument is, that the deed
did not purport to convey an easement, but rather
ownership of the surface as concerned future grants of
easements. The grantee did not receive a mere
easement, but the easement-granting power.
As hereinbefore indicated in this opinion, we think the
coal corporation had complete ownership of the
surface as concerns right of way uses, and was not
limited to appurtenant easements . . . . Id. at 475, 476
(emphasis in original) .
Id. at 729-730.
As demonstrated by the above discussion, because the Severance Deed
was a broad form, Northern deed, the grantee (Appellants' predecessor in
interest) was conveyed under the deed ownership of the easement-granting
power with respect to the surface estate of the Appellees' tracts.
This interpretation comports well with the Severance Deed's plain
language . A "right of way" is defined as "[t]he right to pass through property
owned by another." Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed . 2004) ; 25 Am Jur.2d.,
18
Easements and Licenses, § 5 (2010) . See also Sprint Communications Co., L.P.
v. Leggett, 307 S .W.3d 109, 115 (Ky. 2010) . The Severance Deed conveyed the
original grantee "exclusive" rights of passage "for any and all" (which is self
defining) "ways ." A "way," as used here, is defined as "l . A passage or path . 2 .
A right to travel over another's property." Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.
2004) . Thus, by its plain language, the deed conveyed to the original grantee
the exclusive right to pass across the Knight tracts for "any and all" purposes .
The language of the deed conveying any and all rights of way must be
construed to mean what it says : any and all rights of way. It follows that it was
within the power of the successors in interest to that right, Appellants, to grant
themselves an easement for the purpose of transporting coal mined from non-
adjacent tracts across the surface to the tipple; transporting supplies to the
tipple ; and transporting refuse back out of the tipple .
In summary, based upon our interpretation of the Severance Deed as
discussed above, Appellants were entitled to summary judgment upon their
defense that the deed language granted them the right to use the coal haul
road consistently with their past and current practices .
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
reversed, and the matter is remanded to the Perry Circuit Court for entry of
judgment consistent with this opinion .
All sitting. Minton, C .J ., Abramson, Cunningham and Schroder, JJ.,
concur. Noble, J ., concurs in result only . Scott, J ., concurs in result only, as,
in his opinion, Appellees waived their right to a jury trial.
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS :
Charles Justice Baird
Baird 8v Baird, P.S .C .
P0Box351
Pikeville, Kentucky 41502
Paul Randall Collins
Hollon 8s Collins
P O Box 779
Hazard, Kentucky 41702
Ronald Glenn Combs
Gullett, Combs 8s Bowling
P O Box 1039
Hazard, Kentucky 41702-5039
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEES :
Ronald Glen Polly
Polly 8, Smallwood
127 Main St., Suite C
P O Box 786
Whitesburg, Kentucky 41858