Restricting Land Use: Law of Servitudes – Expressed Easements

Question 1

Common types of easement

Answer 1

are right of way

Question 2

Easements

Answer 2

are non possesory rights to use anothers land that run with the land

Question 3

California Statute of Frauds

Answer 3

contracts are invlaid unless they or some note or memo are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party agent
an agreement for leasing for a longer period than one year

Question 4

New York Statute of Frauds

Answer 4

ontracts are invlaid unless they or some note or memo are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party agent
an agreement for leasing for a longer period than one year

Question 5

Limits on negative easements

Answer 5

restrictions on what an owner can do with their land are sometimes called negative easements

Question 6

Limits to negative easements 3 kinds

Answer 6

1. lateral support of one building
   2 prevention of both light and air from being blocked by construction on neighboring land and
2. right to prevent interference with the flow of an artificial stream such as an aqueduct

Question 7

conservative easements

Answer 7

preventing development of land for environmental purposes

Question 8

historic preservation easements

Answer 8

preventing destruction or alteration of buildings that have historical importance

Question 9

Solar easement

Answer 9

to protect sunlight for solar energy

Question 10

Statsue of frauds

Answer 10

must be in writing and signed by the grantor and sufficiently describe the easement and the grantee

Question 11

easement

Answer 11

is a legal right that allows one party to use another party property for specific purposes

Question 12

Running with the land express elements

Answer 12

1. only if the easement is in writing
2. for the burden to run there was notice to the servient estate holder of the easement and
3. it was intended to run with the estate

Question 13

Two questions to ask under circumstances in which they run with the land

Answer 13

1. Whether the burden runs with the servient estate?
   must a future owner of the land allow the easement owner continued access to control the land.
2. whether the benefit runs with he dominant estate?
   Whoever owns the parcel of the land and it was intended to benefit

Question 14

Appurtenant

Answer 14

If the benefit runs with a particular parcel of the land

Question 15

In gross

Answer 15

if the benefit attaches to a person or entity rather than a parcel of land

Question 16

Green v Lupo Appurtenant or in gross

Answer 16

Facts
(1) Facts: Don Green and his wife Florence, the plaintiffs, sought to enforce an agreement for an easement they claimed was appurtenant to their land. The Greens once owned a larger tract of land and retained a portion after selling the adjacent parcel (the north tract) to the defendants. As part of the sale, the defendants promised to grant an easement along the southern boundary of their parcel for the Greens’ use. This agreement was put in writing, specifying the easement was for ingress, egress, and utilities. However, tension arose due to the use of the easement area by the Greens’ mobile home occupants for motorcycle riding, leading the defendants to refuse formalizing the easement and placing obstacles to restrict access. The trial court ruled the easement was personal to the Greens and limited their use, a decision challenged by the Greens.

Issue
The central issue is whether parol evidence is admissible to determine if an easement agreed in writing but not explicitly characterized as personal or appurtenant should be considered personal to the grantees.

Holding
The court held that the easement was intended to be appurtenant to the plaintiffs’ land, not personal, and reversed the trial court’s decision. This meant the easement could be assigned or conveyed and was not limited to the plaintiffs’ personal use.

Question 17

Cox v Glenbrook Scope and Apportionment

Answer 17

Facts
Glenbrook Company and Cox and Detrick disputed the extent and scope of a right-of-way, known as the “Quill Easement,” originally granted by Glenbrook Company to Henry Quill in 1938. The easement allowed for full use over Glenbrook’s roads for access to Quill’s property. Quill’s property, through subsequent sales, came into the ownership of Cox and Detrick, who planned to subdivide it into 40 to 60 parcels for residential development. This plan led to a legal dispute over the use of the easement, particularly regarding whether it could support the increased traffic from the proposed subdivision. Glenbrook Company operates a seasonal resort and argued that the increased use from the subdivision would disrupt its tranquil environment. The trial court imposed limitations on the easement’s use, restricting it to single-family occupancy and maintenance of the roads as they currently were, and declared the proposed subdivision use would overburden the servient estate.
Issue
Whether the Quill conveyance is clear as to its extent and whether the limitations placed on its use by the lower court are justified by law and the presented facts.
Holding
The Supreme Court of Nevada found that the trial court erred in interpreting the easement’s “full right of use” as ambiguous and subject to judicial interpretation, leading to undue restrictions on the easement. The court clarified the scope and extent of the easement, the rights to maintain, repair, and improve the way, and the limitations on widening the road. It also determined the right of the servient estate owner to barricade a portion of the road and noted that the potential for the subdivision to overburden the servient estate could not be conclusively declared based on existing evidence.