Private Land Use Controls: Servitudes Flashcards
Types of Servitudes
easements and covenants
Servitude definition
Interests in land created by an agreement and provide mutual benefits and burdens of the parcel
Easement
An interest in real property that gives one person the right to use another person’s land for some specified purpose
Easement in gross
does not benefit any land, and involves no dominant estate, only a servient estate
Alienable or unalienable (transferable)
Do not attach to any parcel of land owned by the easement owner (benefits individual or entity not piece of land)
Example: railroad company coming in to cross both back and front lot properties
Easement appurtenant
Example in slides: the actual road used
Burdens one person and benefits the person bringing forth
Requires: dominant tenement (or estate which benefits) [back lot in slides] and servient tenement [front lot in slides, burdened]
The easement attaches to and benefits dominant tenement
Usually transferrable
Transfers to successive owners
If not clear which it is this
Willard
Rule: A grantor may reserve an interest in the land to be granted, for use by a third party. (minority)
Facts:
Appurtenant
Willard filed an action for quiet title for a lot against the church (declaratory action)
Mcguigan owned two side by side lots across the street from the church where she was a member (19 and 20)
She allowed them to use lot 20 for parking for the services
She eventually sold 19 to Peterson who later decided to sell the lot and listed the property with realtor Willard
Willard wanted to buy both (19 and 20 lots) and Petersen delivered deed for both lots in fee simple (at the time P did not own 20 so he went to mcguigan with an offer to purchase it)
She said she would sell if it was still used for parking for the church (used church attorney and easement added) and Petersen recorded the deed
When Willard recorded, he did not mention the easement
Willard found out about the easement bringing the lawsuit
Mcguigan said she would not have sold it if it was not used for that purpose
PH: trial court ruled in favor of the Willards (court said it went against common law rule that grantor cannot reserve an interest for a third party)
Holding:
Third party interest is valid in a deed if the reservation was the clearly discernible intent of the grantor
The common law rule: Kentucky and Oregon had abandoned it because it was a limitation and the primary purpose should be to give effect to the grantor’s intent and this could frustrate the intent of the grantor so California would also abandon it
Considered equity and public policy and Mcguigan’s intent should be honored (it was clear she wanted the parking to stay so clause was valid and enforceable)
Ruled for church
Mund (implication/estoppel)
Rule: A license that is based on an oral promise becomes irrevocable when the licensee makes valuable improvements to land on the basis of the promise.
Facts:
Family dispute over ownership of a well
Plaintiffs are son and daughter in law of the defendant
Plaintiffs and defendant and deceased husband of defendant purchased adjoining one acre parcels, in that year water was drilled on defendant’s property (equipment and pipes were installed so both plaintiff and defendant could access the water)
Plaintiffs contend that from the beginning their interest was permanent and irrevocable
Defendant claims that their interest was not permanent and subject to certain conditions (it’s a license not an easement)
PH: trial court found for defendant
Holding:
Complainants say it goes against statute of frauds
Court agrees but:
No. A license that is based on an oral promise becomes irrevocable when the licensee makes valuable improvements to land on the basis of the promise. This arises not because the parties agreed to make the license irrevocable, but because an injustice would result if the license could be revoked. This is an exception to the general rule that oral licenses may be revoked by the licensor at any time. In this case, there is no written evidence of the intent of the parties at the time of the agreement, but their conduct suggests that they intended for a permanent arrangement. Both parties cooperated in building the well, and have continued to share expenses in operating it. Most significantly, the plaintiffs built a residence on their property in reliance on continuing to be able to withdraw water from the well. These factors demonstrate that the plaintiffs believed they had a permanent arrangement and relied on having a permanent arrangement. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded for an injunction granting the plaintiffs a one-half interest in the well and water system and an easement allowing plaintiffs to access the water system.
their conduct was not fraudulent
An easement by estoppel can be created without writing when:
A valid license was given
On which licensee relied
It would be unfair to permit revocation
Difference between license and easement (mund)
easement is property interest license is not
Can revoke license cannot revoke easement
license does not require a writing
How to create easements (4 ways with 2 subfactors)
- Express (Willard)
- Prescription/ AP (Mund and Othen)
- Estoppel (Mund)
- Implication
-Prior existing use (van sandt)
-Necessity (Othen)
License definition
License: oral or written permission that would otherwise be trespass
Implication/ Estoppel (mund)
An easement by estoppel can be created without writing when (from license):
A valid license was given
On which licensee relied
It would be unfair to permit revocation
Van Sandt
Rule: An easement will be implied in favor of a grantor for sewer pipes running under the grantee’s land, because the grantee is charged with notice, as the existence of such pipes is apparent even if it is not visible.
Facts:
Action was brought to enjoin defendants from using and maintaining an underground lateral sewer drain through and across the plaintiff’s land
Bailey was the owner of 3 lots (19,20, and 4) L-R (Highland avenue ran north and south/Tenth Street running east to west)
City built sewer line across Highland avenue
Bailey made a drain on lot 4 across 19 and 20 and connected to sewer line
In 1904 sold 19 to Johns and 20 to murphy and didn’t reserve easement in the deeds and each of them built a drain for their lots
1936 Van Sandt owned 19 and Royster owned 20 and Gray 4 (none of deeds mentioned drain pipes)
Van Sandt’s basement flooded and demanded Royster and gray stopped draining but they refused so he sued
Van Sandt argued deed did not contain easement
PH: judgement for the defendants, trial court said it was allowed to run through the properties
Holding:
Yes. An easement is a right to use someone else’s land. An owner cannot have an easement in her own property, but the phrase quasi-easement is used when a landowner uses one part of her property to benefit another.
Defendants say that an easement was created by implied reservation on the severance from the servient from the dominant from Bailey to Jones
Necessity includes cases where the property could be used without the easement, but only with difficulty and expense. If the usage of the easement was apparent, that supports the claim that the easement exists. Moreover, the fact that pipes are buried and not visible does not mean that the easement is not apparent. Here, the easement for the pipe was necessary for the use and enjoyment of the other parcels. Jones knew about the pipe when he bought the land. Van Sandt conducted a thorough inspection before he bought the house. Van Sandt saw the modern plumbing and knew the lines had to drain into a sewer. The easement was apparent, and Van Sandt is charged with knowledge of it. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Elements for the creation of an easement by implication because of a prior existing use (quasi-easement) Van Sandt
Severance of title to land initially undivided
An apparent, existing, and continuing use of one parcel at the time of the severance and
Reasonable necessity for the use at the time of severance
Othen v. Royster
Facts: Othen brought suit to enforce a roadway easement on lands of respondents/ Rosier and other defendants claim easement both of necessity and prescription
Land of both parties is a part of tone survey of 2493 acres all of which was formerly owned by one hill
Rosiers own tracts of 100 and 16 acres over which Othen claims an easement
On west side of rosier’s 100 acres is a highway running north and south
Othen’s own 60 acres and 53 acres to the east of and contigous to the rosier’s land
Order of events:
Hill conveyed 100 and by mesne conveyance this tract came into hands of the rosiers
Hill conveyed 60 and also by mesne conveyance tract ended up with the othens
The 53 and 16 were conveyed to other purchasers who ended up separately selling them to othen and rosien
Tone survey touches 3 roads but Othen’s land is not contigous to any of them so he must cross someone else’s land to get to them
Eventually, Rosier was concerned that certain water patterns threatened to cause damage to his property, so he constructed a levee to channel the flow. The levee blocked half of the road used by Othen, and rendered the path muddy and unusable. Othen sued Rosier, alleging that Rosier had blocked his right of ingress and egress to and from his farm. Othen asked the court to order Rosier to remove the levee and enjoin Rosier from further depriving Othen of use of the path.
PH:
The trial court found that Othen had an easement of necessity across Rosier’s land, and entered the requested injunction.
The Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court, and Othen appealed.
Issue:
(1) Whether an easement of necessity is proven where the purported easement holder cannot state that the easement provided the exclusive means of access to the public road.
(2) Whether an easement by prescription is created where the property owner knew of and tolerated the use of the property by another.
Holding:
(1) No. An easement by necessity is created when the owner of an estate conveys a portion of his land, but needs to reserve for himself the use of part of the conveyed land.
In order to prove an easement by necessity, the purported easement holder must show that, at the time of the conveyance, the easement is necessary for entering and exiting to and from the dominant property.
Here, the evidence failed to show that the easement was “necessary” to reach the land eventually owned by Othen at the time that Hill first conveyed the Rosier land. Although there was evidence that there was no other means of reaching Othen’s land for the past forty years (i.e. since 1900), there was no evidence about the means of reaching the land from the public road in 1896, when the land was conveyed. Thus, Othen failed to prove that he received an easement of necessity.
(2) No. An easement by prescription is obtained under circumstances similar to adverse possession. The purported owner of the easement must make use of the easement in a manner adverse to the actual owner of the land.
If the owner has knowledge and grants consent (actual or implied) to use the land, no easement by prescription can be created. Here, Othen’s actions did not amount to an easement by prescription because all parties had used the land throughout their occupation of the land. Under the circumstances, Othen was merely granted a license to use the land, which cannot ripen to an easement by prescription. The judgment of the appeals court is affirmed.
Difference between OTHEN AND vAN sANDT
Strict necessity for necessity instead of just apparent
No other options!
elements for implied easement by necessity
There was a unity of ownership between the servient and dominant estate
The alleged easement is a strict necessity not a mere convenience
The necessity existed at the time of the severance of the two estates