Quantcast

SOUTHEAST TEXAS RECORD

Friday, April 19, 2024

Court affirms decision in a condemnation case in Seaway Crude Pipeline's favor

Natural gas 06

HOUSTON – An appeals court has affirmed a lower court’s judgment in a condemnation case that ruled in favor of Seaway Crude Pipeline Co.

In a May 22 ruling, the Court of Appeals for the 1st District of Texas affirmed Fort Bend County Court’s final judgment in Seaway’s favor, holding that Seaway could condemn easements across the land and ordering a roughly $88,000 award to property owner Bernard J. Morello. The award represents the amount Morello’s expert identified as the property’s market value without any compensation for loss of value to the remainder of the land.

Morello had challenged the trial court’s judgment, saying it erred in ruling for Seaway on Seaway’s summary-judgment motion and his plea to jurisdiction. He also argued that the “court erred in denying his motion for costs and in excluding and limiting his expert’s testimony,” the opinion states.

A three-judge panel consisting of Justices Harvey Brown, Evelyn Keyes and Russell Lloyd found that the trial court didn’t err in its decisions. 

According to the opinion, there are three Seaway Pipelines crossing Morello’s two tracts of land - the first was laid in 1975 before Morello purchased the property and the second in 2014. The second pipeline is at issue in this case. A third pipeline laid afterward isn’t part of the lawsuit. 

In 2012, Seaway decided to add a second pipeline, a $2 million upgrade that would allow it to move crude oil in both directions simultaneously.

"The new pipeline would cross 2,820 separate tracts of land and travel in 'mostly a straight line' parallel to Seaway’s existing pipeline from the Texas Gulf Coast to Oklahoma," the opinion states.

Seaway approached Morello regarding a 50-foot-wide pipeline easement across his property next to the 1975 easement and pipeline. 

While he wasn’t opposed to a second pipeline on his property, Morello requested that Seaway use a single easement for both pipelines. Seaway rejected his request, saying the existing easement couldn’t be used for “safety reasons” and that a second 50-foot easement was needed. Morello stated he felt “pushed” to make a monetary counter-offer instead of negotiating the pipeline’s placement. 

When Seaway sent its “final offer to acquire easements,” Morello didn’t accept and the company began condemnation proceedings, the opinion states.

More News