## Facts

- The United States granted the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) five utility easements over certain land, allowing construction and maintenance of utility facilities.
- Each easement reserved to the United States a right to require GRDA to relocate or remove its facilities upon request of the federal officer with immediate jurisdiction, if the land was needed by the United States or the facilities were detrimental to governmental activities.
- The United States later conveyed the servient estate to Edward T. Beattie and Walter R. Bailey, Jr. by quitclaim deed conveying all of the United States’ right, title, and interest, and stating the conveyance was “subject to” existing easements and encumbrances, including GRDA’s easements.
- After the purchase, the new owners demanded GRDA relocate or remove its facilities under the easement reservation; GRDA refused, asserting the relocation/removal power was personal to the United States and not transferred.
- The purchasers sued to enforce the claimed relocation/removal rights; both sides sought summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment to GRDA, and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the relocation/removal rights reserved to the United States in the utility easements were assignable and transferred to the purchasers through the quitclaim deed.
2. Whether the deed’s “subject to” clause reserved those rights to the United States or otherwise prevented the rights from passing to the purchasers.
3. Whether genuine disputes of material fact concerning the nature of the reserved rights and the parties’ intent precluded summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted rehearing, withdrew its earlier opinion, and issued a substituted opinion.
- The court vacated the Court of Civil Appeals’ decision.
- The court reversed the district court’s summary judgment for GRDA and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held summary judgment was improper because controverted material facts existed as to whether the relocation/removal rights were personal to the United States or appurtenant incidents of the servient estate that could pass by conveyance, and as to the legal effect of the deed language in this transaction.
- The court declined to definitively determine ownership of the relocation/removal rights on the summary-judgment record.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is improper where the record shows genuine disputes of material fact and the moving party is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Whether a reserved power connected to an easement is a personal contractual right or an interest tied to ownership of the servient estate affects whether it transfers with a conveyance.
- A quitclaim deed transfers whatever present interest the grantor holds, but may not resolve, without further factual development, whether a particular reserved power is personal or runs with the land.
- A “subject to” clause generally serves to acknowledge existing encumbrances and limit warranties; it does not, by itself, conclusively establish a reservation of additional rights in the grantor absent clear expression.
- When instruments and surrounding circumstances allow competing inferences regarding intent and the character of a property-related right, fact-finding is required.

## Conclusion

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that disputed facts regarding the character and transferability of the United States’ reserved relocation/removal rights, and the effect of the quitclaim deed’s language, required reversal of summary judgment for GRDA and a remand for further proceedings.


Beattie v. State ex rel. Grand River Dam Auth., 41 P.3d 377 (Okla. 2002)