Easement Cases

Question 1

D’s owed land sold some of it to peas and when he requested a deed release for part of the property P, agreed to exchange for an easement over D’s tract. Ps built cabin, mobile home, some tenants used for motorcycles. D’s refused to formally grant easement and blocked access, arguing it was supposed to be easement in gross and P’s argued appertenant. Which?

Answer 1

Appurtenant. Because:
1. Notice
2. More permanent
3. Preserves value of owners
4. Language did not limit access

Shows:
1. Intent
2. Productive use of land
3. Fairness/undue burden

Green v. Lupo (1982)

Question 2

Resort grant easement for access to a one lane road to Farmer for $10. Allows easier access to his land.. farmer died and developer required his land and wanted to subdivide parcel into a neighborhood, but needed to widen the road. Trial court, said this was an easement and gross and denied developers request to widen.

In gross?

Answer 2

No, appurtenant. Land pertain to the road and contain the land that the easement would pass on to the farmers “heirs and assigns”. However, residents of the new subdivision can only use one-land road (developer can’t extend).

• deal was a bargain
• parties should anticipate will subdivide parcels
• contradictory expectations (subdivision but can’t widen
• court created a need for a negotiated solution

Cox v. Glenbrook co (1962)