Page 55 - Discover Fall 2020
P. 55
between the Pressls and AEP. precedent setting cases that had been decided
in favor of the property owners, in accordance
“No matter what I did – they wanted with Virginia Easement Law. An appeal to the
something else,” he says.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals resulted in a
Finally, an AEP employee came out to ruling in Pressl’s favor, sending the case back
the property. Regardless of the fact that the to State Court, as it was a property rights legal
previous owners had replanted the shoreline, case.
she insisted that additional trees be planted In the Virginia State Court, in a pre-
“without disturbing the soil.” Ridiculous as trial hearing, AEP asked for a dismissal. In
that seemed, Pressl offered to plant them in that hearing, the judge permitted AEP to
raised beds, to which she replied that they present evidence, which is not proper protocol
could not bring in additional topsoil.
for a pre-trial hearing. The judge ultimately
Frustrated, the Pressls decided to take dismissed the case, stating that AEP had
legal action. At issue was the extent to which “nearly fee simple” property rights below
AEP’s flowage easement gave 800 feet. In plain English,
them the right to control the this means that AEP controls
use of private property below all property below the 800
the 800 foot mark. Normally, foot contour and can do as it
an easement is granted for a pleases with it.
specific purpose. The Pressls Now it might appear
contended that as long as as though the case had been
AEP was able to flood land up closed, except for the fact
to the 800 foot contour, the that there was never any
easement would be satisfied. sort of a trial. In every case,
AEP argued that it gave them in a hearing to determine
the right to control whatever whether or not to try the
is done on that land. This case, the judge simply made a
claim was based on language ruling. The problem with that
stating that as part of the is that AEP was permitted
easement, AEP could remove to present evidence in those
vegetation and standing hearings, which is not normal
structures below the 800 foot procedure. Furthermore, the
mark. This authority was granted to them so Pressls were NOT permitted to present their
that the lake could be created without having own evidence.
buildings and trees poking up out of the water
or interfering with navigation. Pressl points out that in every Court,
AEP claimed that wetlands were one of the
This is where the waters became muddy, biggest issues regarding their refusal to issue a
so to speak. In court, AEP contended that dock permit. AEP’s attorneys repeatedly made
since they held a Federal license to operate that claim, but never submitted any evidence
the lake as a hydroelectric project, this matter to back it up, because there was none.
had to be decided in a Federal Court. The
judge agreed, and sent the case to the District To make matters worse, press coverage
Court, in which the judge dismissed the case, of this legal battle depicted this as a case of
stating that AEPs case held merit, in spite of a rogue property owner who did not want
www.discoversmithmountainlake.com 53
