In 1927 the landowners' predecessors granted six easements allowing the predecessor of AEP Texas Inc. to "construct, operate, patrol, maintain and repair" a single electric transmission line, part of a roughly 21-mile line built to carry power from generation near Eastland to communities further west. The line was built with wooden H-frame structures and, the landowners say, remains in good working condition.¹ Wilks Ranch Texas, Ltd., Daniel H. Wilks, Staci Wilks, and Farjo Ranch LLC own the burdened parcels today. In 2021 AEP announced a modernization project to remove the existing line and rebuild it with taller steel monopoles and slightly larger-diameter conductors, which the landowners call an unnecessary project that makes money for AEP and AEP calls a reasonable modernization within the easements' purpose.²

The Wilks parties sued for an injunction, specific performance, and a declaratory judgment that the easements do not authorize the project; AEP answered and, alternatively, cross-claimed for condemnation, which it later nonsuited. The 91st District Court of Eastland County (Judge Steven R. Herod) temporarily enjoined the project, then granted the landowners' motion for summary judgment and final judgment, declaring the easements limited AEP to the materials and design selected in 1927, and awarded the landowners over $470,000 in trial-court attorney's fees plus over $223,000 in contingent appellate fees; the landowners nonsuited their injunction and specific-performance claims.¹ The Eleventh Court of Appeals (Williams, J., joined by Bailey, C.J., and Trotter, J.) reversed and rendered judgment that the easements unambiguously do not prohibit AEP from modernizing the line, holding that "construct," "patrol" and "maintain" implicitly permit the project as consistent with the implied grant, a reasonable use, convenient and of little added burden, and held the landowners waived the necessity issue, and remanded on attorney's fees. AEP Texas Inc. v. Wilks Ranch Texas, Ltd., 720 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. App.⁠—Eastland 2025, pet. filed).² The landowners petitioned for review on November 24, 2025 and AEP responded April 10, 2026. The Court requested merits briefing on June 19, 2026; the landowners filed on September 18, 2026 and AEP's brief is due in November 2026.

Petition for review from the Eleventh Court of Appeals, which reversed a summary and final declaratory judgment for the landowners and rendered judgment for the utility on the scope of 1927 transmission-line easements, remanding on attorney's fees. The Court requested merits briefing on June 19, 2026; the petitioners' brief is on file and the respondent's brief is due in November 2026. The Court has not yet granted the petition.

The petition's issues, restated in the landowners' brief, are whether the court of appeals erred by allowing reconstruction rights the 1927 easements' text does not give, and alternatively whether it erroneously relieved AEP of its burden to prove reasonableness and necessity through an unmerited waiver holding.¹ AEP restates them as whether the court properly recognized that the express easements broadly authorize it to build and maintain a transmission line using whatever materials are "necessary," so they do not unambiguously constrain it to a 1927 design, and whether the court correctly observed that the summary judgment was not sustainable on an unpled factual theory and properly rendered judgment on the sole question of easement law presented in the competing motions.²

Petitioners (Wilks Ranch Texas, Ltd.; Daniel H. Wilks; Staci Wilks; and Farjo Ranch LLC): Texas law begins with an express easement's text and distinguishes easements that include broad, forward-looking reconstruction rights from those that do not, as in Southwestern Electric Power Co. v. Lynch, which allowed reconstruction of steel poles under such language, versus Houston Pipe Line Co. v. Dwyer, which found no forward-looking text. They argue the 1927 easements contain no such language, "construct" does not mean "reconstruct," "patrol" and "maintain" do not mean replace with anything in AEP's discretion, and the court of appeals' implied-rights theory violates Texas law and the easements' text and gives utilities an open-ended right to rebuild repeatedly on a mere assertion of technological development or maintenance. Alternatively, three legal sources require proof of reasonableness and necessity, AEP offered none, and the landowners did not waive the issue, since their unrebutted evidence showed the project is unnecessary.¹

Respondent (AEP Texas Inc.): The text of an express easement determines its purpose, here transmitting electricity across the servient properties to the public, and courts presume the grantee may use whatever means are reasonably necessary to accomplish that purpose unless the easement says otherwise; neither Dwyer nor any other Texas case creates the opposite presumption. The landowners' view, that an express easement permits only articulated activities, misstates long-standing common law, ignores that easements are dominant estates, and would destabilize settled property rights and freedom to contract. AEP says its summary-judgment motion presented only a pure question of easement law, converse to the landowners', so the court of appeals relieved it of no evidentiary burden, and the landowners abandoned their theory that the line could not be replaced at all.²

The landowners argue the decision presents an important statewide question of property law about the balance between landowners' and utilities' rights, exceeds Texas precedent that looks to an easement's express terms, and would let utilities exercise a "broad, perpetual" right to rebuild merely by invoking maintenance or technological development; they note utility amici below argued the ruling could affect "thousands, if not millions" of aged easements.¹ AEP responds that the decision correctly applies long-established common law, with no disagreement among the courts of appeals and no statute or constitutional issue, so review should be denied.²

• Texas Farm Bureau (amicus brief, April 20, 2026)
• John B. Scott (amicus letter, December 19, 2025)