Easements

Question 1

Easements

Answer 1

Right to use another’s land for a limited purpose (not possession).

Question 2

Appurtenant Easement

Answer 2

Right that attaches to the land and passes on with the land if conveyed.
- TAKES 2 parcels of land (dom/servient)

Question 3

In-Gross Easement

Answer 3

The benefit of easement held by a particular person or entity rather than a parcel of land (btwn grantor and grantee)
- The easement runs w/ the land if it is a commercial transaction (THINK Profs Disney and Warner Bros ex).
- Think billboards for commercial; right to swim in another’s pond (personal)
- TAKES 1 party

Question 4

Easements by Implication
1. Easements by Estoppel (Lobato v. Taylor)

Answer 4

Elements:
1. Permission by the owner to use the land,
2. Foreseeable and reasonable reliance on continuation of permission,
3. Changed position by claimant in reliance on continuation
4. Easement to prevent injustice.

Question 5

Easements by Implication
2. Easements by Prescription (Frech v. Piontkwoski)
THINK ADVERSE POSSESSION!

Answer 5

• Run w/ the land
• very difficult to broaden the scope of the prescriptive easement w/o burdened estate owner’s permission.
• Created through the continuous adverse and open use of the land until the expiration of SOL for trespass.
• FOCUS on length of use w/o permission
• Same elements as adv possession minus “exclusive”:
  1. Open and visible
  2. Continous (can use tacking)
  3. Actual
  4. Hostile

Question 6

Easements by Implication
3. Easements by Implied Prior Use (Lobato v. Taylor)

Answer 6

Elements:
1. Servient and dominant estates were once under common ownership
2. Rights alleged were exercised prior to the severance of the estate
3. Use was not merely temporary
4. Continuation of the use was reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of the parcel;
5. A contrary intention is neither expressed nor implied

Courts will imply an easement from that previous use if the use was:
1. Already apparent AND
2. The parties expected that the use would survive division b/c it’s reasonably necessary to the now dominant tenements’ use and enjoyment.

Question 7

Easements by Implication
4. Easements by Necessity (Finn v. Williams)

Answer 7

• Think LANDLOCKED–when a grantor conveys a portion of their land with no way out EXCEPT over some part of the grantor’s remaining land.
  Elements:
  1. The dominant and servient estates were formerly one parcel, AND
  2. At the time of the severance, the dominant estate became landlocked.