STC's Ohio Tower Outside of Easement, Says Landowner's Counterclaim

Any perceived breach of the lease is excused or superseded by STC Two’s “defaults of its obligations” in the lease and another memorandum, Branham said. He seeks dismissal of the case, injunctive relief and recovery of his costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

The Global Signal company alleged Branham installed a padlock at the entrance of a cell tower site on his property, in breach of his lease to STC Two, and refused to remove it. STC employees and their “invitees” have been unable to access the premises freely, which plaintiffs said is interfering with cell tower operations and the company’s relationship with customers. Branham jeopardized the safety and security of the cellsite and individuals trying to access it; interfered with STC and its customers’ operations at the site; “adversely impacted” the company’s contractual relationships with its customers; and placed at risk “critical wireless and internet services” used by the local communities that rely on the cellsite for services. Branham denied the allegations.

Branham continued to obstruct Global Signal’s access to the cellsite “in blatant violation” of the lease, which entitles its employees to access “24 hours per day, 7 days per week,” the complaint said.

In his trespass counterclaim, Branham said STC built and placed the cell tower on his property, which is enclosed by metal fencing. The tower wasn’t placed within the boundaries of the easement Branham granted, he said, so when STC employees and customers access the tower, they “must traverse defendant’s land to gain access,” he said. STC’s trespass has been “knowing and intentional,” resulting in “unconsented to and a malicious violation of” the grant of easement and Branham’s use of his land, he said. STC won’t be harmed financially if it’s enjoined from its "unlawful trespass."

In his counterclaim asserting breach of express contract, Branham said STC failed to complete "to the satisfaction of the City of Columbus” the permit process, causing the city to look to him for noncompliance with permit ordinances, he said. Also, Branham said, STC risked disturbing the occupancy of his other tenants, in violation of the lease, and “may have failed to provide” an insurance certificate, also in violation of the lease, he said.

Branham seeks an order enjoining STC from trespassing on his land that’s outside the boundaries of his easement grant. STC’s trespass “interferes with defendant’s property rights,” Branham alleged, saying an order enjoining further trespass on his property won't “have any adverse effect on any other member of the public.”

STC asserts nothing in the lease requires it to provide prior notice of its need to access the cellsite or the presentation of a work order. Branham denied those claims, saying “the privilege of plaintiff gaining access to the subject premises without providing prior notice is waived or eliminated due to plaintiff’s defaults of its obligations pursuant to the Lease and other relevant documents.”

STC and Global Signal claim breach of contract and seek declaratory and injunctive relief. They seek damages of more than $75,000, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, plus the removal of the lock and a declaration that Branham is prohibited from interfering with plaintiffs’ and their customers’ maintenance and operation of the cellsite.

The complaint fails because of STCs’ “own breaches” of the lease and relevant documents, said Branham. It fails based on the application of the equitable doctrines of waiver and/or estoppel, and STC’s claims for injunctive relief fail because it doesn’t have irreparable harm, he said. Branham seeks compensatory and punitive damages and an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees.