Easements Flashcards
equitable limitation –> what is the SCOPE of your easement? (2)
1) is use of the kind contemplated? 2) place an unreasonable burden on the servient estate?
scope of E: use of kind contemplated: location (minority)
servient estate owner can change the location if s. pays for it
ending an e.: why do you need to?
easements are forever, unless ended
can’t get e. by prescription bc it’s not adverse or hostile? then try
otherwise if license could be e.b.e maybe
Green v. Lupo
F: P had easement over D’s strip of land and using fro road, builds mobile home park and they are racing motorcycles H: the E. is appurtenant bc of presumption in favor (and wasn’t clear from writing) N: ex. of e. being divisible also (applying to all the mobile home owners). Court did agree to equitable limitations–dnw undue burden on servient owner’s estate, so ok limit motorcycle racing
ending an e: merger or unity of title
can’t have an e. on your own land, so if they merge it’s gone (if later land divided again you’d have to start over to try to get an e)
e. by necessity: dominant and servient estates formerly 1 parcel (qualifier) (2)
dnh to be immediately before in teh chain of title, and dnn prior use (ok easement be dormant for a time)
Lobato v. Taylor
F: CO landowners want easement to access Taylor property from back int he time of Mx law H: court finds e. (prescriptive, estoppel, AND prior use) –> previous use permitted, reasonable to foresee change in position (survival/food) and they DID change position (settle land) N: contextual interpretation vs formalist legal analysis
E. by estoppel: license by owner to use land
normally for access purposes
E. by estoppel c/c license
E. by estoppel starts out as license, goes on or so long and in such a way that it ripens into EBE
e. in gross
attaches to people
E. by estoppel: extra non-W element
fraud/deception on part of grantor
dividing e. appurtenant vocab
“divisibility”
easements vs licenses (and 1 exception)
E: formal, usu permanent, right, interest in land, subject to SoF, transferable – licenses none of these But note: implied easesments are less formal, blurring the line
F: P claims easement over portion of gravel lot used by trucks to turn around H: prescriptive easement elements…dnh to prove area used w absolute precision, just generally where it was. (C AP: bc claim of right, must look at actual use to define Bs of easement
Community Feed Store Inc v. Northeastern Culvert Corp
Can e. be subdivided?: in gross: typical example
e. sold btwn utility cos
easements v. leases
lease: possessory rights to use defined space for all uses (unless otherwise specified), Easements are nonposessory
easement by prescription: elements (6)
Use must be: 1) actual 2) nonexclusive (contrast AP) 3) open and notorious 4) adverse/hositle under claim of right or color of title 5) continuous 6) for a statutory period
express easement: intent
by grantor, to run w the estate (if ambiguous, circumstances…)
easement by prescription (def)
similar to AP but at the end you get use instead of title
E. by estoppel: reasonable reliance: Define “reasonable” (6)
consider –conduct of parties, –oral assurances –social context –amount of time –if LL was expressly withholding e. and why –parties actions
easement: actual notice
eg a writing
Finn v. Williams
F: Ps have landlocked parcel, now can no longer exit over another’s property so want E.B.N. over D’s land (used to be 1 parcel) H: landlocked parcel can’t waive its right to EBN even if it lay dormand through transfers of title
scope of e.: use of kind contemplated: location (majority/W)
majority/W: can’t change the location of your easement –defined by grantor’s intent and instrument at the time created
Can e. be subdivided: in gross: “exclusive” def
exculsive of the grantor
ending an e: marketable title acts
statutes aying that interests in land have to be re-recorded every x years (by true owner), otherwise not binding
the only ko transferable license
movie tickets
easement by prescription – c/c AP element (2) and result
Element: PE is nonexclusive of true owner, AP exclusive 2) PE is USE, AP possession Result: 2) PE leads to non-fee interest (no-title)
can e. be subdivided? apurtenant
majority view: YES – e benefits entire dominant estate and can be apportioned among subsequent owners
courts presumption: appertenant v. in gross?
strong presumption for appertenant
ending an e: express release
bargain for a k to end the e.
scope of easement: use of kind contemplated: territory of easement
usu can’t expand territory of your easement (that would be an unreasonable buren…c)
express easement: in writing (4 requirements)
–subject to SoF –usu conveyed in deed but not required to be mentioned in subsequent deeds –must be written AT MOMENT CREATED –must specify: grantor, grantee, what easement is actually granting
can e. be subdivided? appurtenant: basic scenario
owner of dominant estate now wants to divide his estate (eg sell part of it to someone else, or create a subdivision…)
scope of e: use of kind contemplated: sub-elements in W (3)
1) RoW can be used for any reasonable PURPOSE 2) usu can’t expand TERRITORY of e. 3) and can’t change LOCATION of e.
how to interpret ambiguities in e.s?
language, circumstances
F: Ps have landlocked parcel, now can no longer exit over another’s property so want E.B.N. over D’s land (used to be 1 parcel) H: landlocked parcel can’t waive its right to EBN even if it lay dormand through transfers of title
Finn v. Williams
E. by estoppel: elements (4)
1) license by the owner to use the land 2) licensor’s knowledge or reasonable expectation that reliance will occur 3) reasonable reliance 4) necessary to prevent injustice
appurtenant e.
easement attaches to the land / runs with
implied easements run w the land IF (3) *a whole separate question!!
1) intended to do so (not just about what grantor wanted, more about circumstances etc as above) 2) reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of dominant estate but (3) relatively high standard for courts to find them
easement by prescription: adverse/hostile element
NO PERMISSION – hard bar, bc ppl often grant neighbors permission tow alk over their land etc
servitudes
turns a k btwn 2 ppl about use of land into a k that RUNS WITH THE LAND when it’s sold
How to end an e? (6 ways)
1) express release 2) by its own terms 3) merger or unity of title 4) abandonment 5) AP or prescription 6) marketable title acts
license examples
come over for dinner (until I revoke at end of nigth), swim in my lake
scope of easement: use of kind contemplated: minority view
limits e. to specific things listed (narrow)
F: P owns resort and old easement to owner who now wants to build subdivision on what used to be his single family parcel, wants to widen road. H: E. must be divisible or it would destroy its appurtenant character. E. not limited to use contemplated in original grant (acces/egress by single family) N: but they can’t widen the road – so opposite result, bc now can’t build subdivision
Cox v. Glenbrook Co.
5 kinds of easements
1) express (the other 4 are implied): 2) prescription 3) implication 4) necessity 5) estoppel
affirmative servitude
right to use another’s land for a limited purpose
scope of e: unreasonable burden on servient estate – (and, distinct inquiry…)
grantor’s intent distinct inquiry from use of kind contemplated (ex. Green–motorcycle use is of kind contemplated (it’s a road) but still mgith be unreasonable burden (they’re racing them)
profit a prendre
easement that lets nonowners collect resources (eg coal) from the land
express (formal) easement: elements (3)
1) in writing 2) intent 3) notice
scope of easement: use of kind contemplated: majority/W view (and an ex)
right of way can be used for any reasonable purpose –eg RoW road can be used for utility lines, and ok read broadly to accommodate changes in tech
e. by necessity: elements (3)
1) dominant and servient estate were formerly 1 parcel 2) at time of severence, dominant estate became landlocked 3) necessary
ending an e: AP/prescription
if someone else AP’s your e. (ex. e. holder isn’t using it, someone from another parcel starts benefitting from it)
servient estate
burdened parcel
Community Feed Store Inc v. Northeastern Culvert Corp
F: P claims easement over portion of gravel lot used by trucks to turn around H: prescriptive easement elements…dnh to prove area used w absolute precision, just generally where it was. (C AP: bc claim of right, must look at actual use to define Bs of easement
Cox v. Glenbrook Co.
F: P owns resort and old easement to owner who now wants to build subdivision on what used to be his single family parcel, wants to widen road. H: E. must be divisible or it would destroy its appurtenant character. E. not limited to use contemplated in original grant (acces/egress by single family) N: but they can’t widen the road – so opposite result, bc now can’t build subdivision
e. in gross example
right to run the phone wires attaches to the utility co (NOT to another piece of land)
constructive trust
can force a person to do something w land for benefit of another –> alternative to e.
ending an e.: abandonment
owner of e. indicated by conduct intent to abandon the e. –> hard to show
F: P had easement over D’s strip of land and using fro road, builds mobile home park and they are racing motorcycles H: the E. is appurtenant bc of presumption in favor (and wasn’t clear from writing) N: ex. of e. being divisible also (applying to all the mobile home owners). Court did agree to equitable limitations–dnw undue burden on servient owner’s estate, so ok limit motorcycle racing
Green v. Lupo
ending an e: by its own tersm
eg written e. says expires after x yeras
F: CO landowners want easement to access Taylor property from back int he time of Mx law H: court finds e. (prescriptive, estoppel, AND prior use) –> previous use permitted, reasonable to foresee change in position (survival/food) and they DID change position (settle land) N: contextual interpretation vs formalist legal analysis
Lobato v. Taylor
E. by estoppel: reasonable reliance: define reliance
claimant changed position in reliance on right (usu financially – make investment etc)
E. by implication: use reasonably necessary (2)
–no absolute necessity standard –necessity burden is higher when grantor is the dominant estate (You’re the one who sold the land, should’ve put it in the deed then) – but not impossible (dominant estate holder had one in Granite Properties0
Easement by Implication, aka
easement by prior use
dividing e. in gross vocab
“apportionability”
constructive trust: example
Rose v. Castle Mtn Ranch: rancher lets peopel build cabins on his land but written licenses say revocable 30 days notice, they live there 50 years and he sells land. Remedy–they can stay 13 years
express easement: notice (3 kinds)
actual inquiry constructive
dominant estate
benefitted parcel
ean e. be subdivided? depends on:
appurtenant v. in gross
Granite Properties Limited Partnership v. Manns
F: P owned full parcel of land w shopping center and apartment building, sold in-between land to D but P wanted driveways to be e. H: Elements work together – apparent and continuous helped fulfill elastic / necessity requirement
Henley v. Continental Cablevision of St Louis County Inc
Ps suing Ds who had e. to provide phone and elc but now want to add tv cables H: were E. in gross apportionable to other companies in the future? yes bc exclusive of servient owners
ending an e: abandonment: EXCEPTION
e.b. necessity can lie dormant
Ps suing Ds who had e. to provide phone and elc but now want to add tv cables H: were E. in gross apportionable to other companies in the future? yes bc exclusive of servient owners
Henley v. Continental Cablevision of St Louis County Inc
easement by prior use aka
easement by implication
easement: inquiry notice
knew or should’ve known, visible signs of use by nonowner on property
scope of e: unreasonable burden on servient estate: grantor’s intent – what to consider?
1) in document? 2) circumstances
easement: constructive notice
chain of title–reasonable search of registry would lead to discovery of the deed (again, knew or should’ve – dn search registry isn’t a defense)
servitude
private agreement between owners
negative servitude/easement
covenant, restriction on land use
Can e. be subdivided? in gross: 2 kinds
1) exclusive – YES approtionable (you can sell e. to someone else 2) nonexclusive - nonapportionable (you can swim in my lake but I’m going to swim in it too…)
e in gross – dom / serv estates?
no, dn exist
E. by estoppel element #2
licensor KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that reliance would occur
E. by implication: elements (3)
1) 2 parcels previously owned by common grantor 2) 1 parcel previously used for benefit of the other parcel in manner that was apparent and continuous 3) use “reasonably necessary” for the enoyment of the dominat esatate
easement: definition
nonpossessory interest to use land of another
can e. be subdivided?: contrast
just bc you bought a new piece of land next to your old land that was also going to need an e. (eg RoW) – NOT expanded. But if you had divided your land, it would be
E. by estoppel: c/c prescriptive easement or AP
E.b.E: permission by grantor becomes basis for claim of right…vs in AP permission by grantor is a defense to rights of others
e.b. necessity: necessary
more than reasonably necessary – higher standard (now usu means to get there w motorized transportation)
F: P owned full parcel of land w shopping center and apartment building, sold in-between land to D but P wanted driveways to be e. H: Elements work together – apparent and continuous helped fulfill elastic / necessity requirement
Granite Properties Limited Partnership v. Manns
E. by estoppel: licensor’s knowledge or reasonable expectation that reliance will occur (2)
grantor’s intent: NOT did he intend for it to turn into an easement, sino did he allow the use? did they induce reliance? do they actually know that the other party is relying? would reasonable person know?
easement by prescription aka
“the adverse possession easement”
F: CO landowners want easement to access Taylor property from back int he time of Mx law H: court finds e. (prescriptive, estoppel, AND prior use) –> previous use permitted, reasonable to foresee change in position (survival/food) and they DID change position (settle land) N: contextual interpretation vs formalist legal analysis
Lobato v. Taylor
