A Colorado judge ruled a shared easement cannot serve a separate solar project, protecting neighbouring landowners’ property rights during litigation.
A shared road meant to provide access to neighbouring properties has become the centre of a legal battle in Colorado, where a dispute over a solar development has raised questions about property rights, utility infrastructure and the limits of private easements.
According to a report by The Business Times, a judge has now stepped in, restricting how a solar developer and other defendants can use the route while the lawsuit continues.The ruling in Mesa County draws a distinction between accessing land that has rights under the easement and using the same route to serve a separate solar project that does not, adds the online report.
A shared road, competing interests
As per The Business Times report, the dispute centres on an easement providing access to James Sterling’s property at 656 39 Road, outside Palisade, where Pivot Energy has leased land for a solar development.
The report explains that Sterling entered into solar and battery-storage leases with Pivot in December 2022. The company subsequently entered agreements with Xcel Energy to connect solar facilities to the electrical grid, while Sturgeon Electric Company was contracted to install utility infrastructure.The conflict arose over plans to install power lines within the shared easement to serve the separate Summy Solar Project, located south of the neighbouring properties.
If we go by the court’s findings, the Summy property has no rights under the easement.In a preliminary injunction issued on September 25, Mesa County District Judge JenniLynn E. Lawrence prohibited the defendants from using the easement to benefit the Summy project, including installing the proposed power lines. Access to Sterling’s property through the designated route remains permitted, the online report explains.
Neighbours take the dispute to court
Another report by The Grand Junction Source states that the lawsuit was filed on April 17 by James and Christine Murphy, Raven Novak, Cullen and Krista Howard, and James and Maureen Delany. The defendants include Sterling, Pivot Energy Development LLC, Pivot Solar 44 LLC, Sturgeon Electric Company and Public Service Company of Colorado, which operates as Xcel Energy.The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order in April before holding an evidentiary hearing on September 4.The judge found that the landowners had established a reasonable probability of prevailing on their claim that the easement could not legally be used to benefit the Summy property.
The injunction is intended to protect their property rights while the broader dispute proceeds.The order does not prohibit solar development in the surrounding area. Instead, it addresses the permitted use of the specific easement and the defendants’ conduct on neighbouring land.
Trespassing and road safety concerns
According to the report, the ruling also addresses a shortcut across the northeast corner of the Howards’ property, outside the designated easement.
The route had historically been used with the owners’ permission, but that permission was withdrawn after its use intensified. The Howards subsequently posted no-trespassing signs.According to the judge’s findings, video evidence showed the defendants or their employees crossing the property before the shortcut was roped off. The injunction now prohibits the defendants from trespassing on the Howards’ land, including by using the unauthorised route.And, road safety is another concern. The court found that Sterling had removed substantial amounts of soil along the easement road, leaving vertical cuts measuring eight to 10 feet. The resulting loose, unsecured slopes could wash onto the road and potentially destabilise nearby power poles.Sterling has been prohibited from creating further unsafe conditions, including additional vertical cuts that leave unstable slopes, the online report mentions.
Legal battle far from over
As per the report, Pivot and Sterling argue that the easement permits access and utility-related uses connected with Sterling’s property, including solar development. They also maintain that the agreement does not require neighbouring owners to approve reasonable improvements.Xcel denies wrongdoing and argues that the agreement allows electrical distribution lines to be installed. Alternatively, the utility says it may pursue additional property rights through condemnation, a legal process through which private property can be acquired for qualifying public uses with compensation.
Sturgeon also denies wrongdoing, negligence and trespassing.The judge's order makes clear that the availability of condemnation does not, by itself, authorise a utility to use an easement without a legal right to do so.The preliminary injunction does not settle the underlying claims. A seven-day trial is scheduled to begin on September 27, 2027, with further proceedings planned through October 5. Until then, the ruling establishes boundaries on access, construction and property use as the legal fight continues, the report states.Images Courtesy: istock