Restricting Law Use; Servitudes, Prescriptive and Implied Easements

Question 1

Servitude

Answer 1

is a right or obligation that runs with the land
in other words it passes to owners or possessors of the land

Question 2

Servitudes can be either

Answer 2

affirmative or negative
affirmative servitude ar called easements is the right to use another land
example: cable company telephone company

Negative servitude are called covenants are restrictions what an ower can do to their land

Question 3

land passes to owner is called

Answer 3

dominant or benefitted estate

Question 4

what is land in gross

Answer 4

example; running a utility line on someone’s land
a particular individual or entity has a benefit to use someone else ‘s land

Question 5

a benefitted estate is

Answer 5

appurtenant servitude

Question 6

Implied Easements- Statue of Frauds

Answer 6

1. Prescriptive easement
2. Easement by Estoppel
3. Easement by necessity
4. Easement by implied prior use

Question 7

Prescriptive easement elements

Answer 7

Actual Use that is OCAN

1 Open and Notorious
2 Continous
3 Adverse Hostyile
4 Notice meets the statute of limitations

Question 8

Easement by Estoppel

Answer 8

1 Permission expressed or implied
2 Reasonable reliance on continuation of the permission
3 Substantial change in position
4 Substantial injustice to revoke

Question 9

Easement by Necessity

Answer 9

1 Severance of common estate
2 Landlocked parcel after severed

Question 10

Easement by implied from prior use

Answer 10

1 Two parcels were at one time in common ownership
2 One of the parcels had derived a benefit or advantage from the other parcel prior to the sale
3 Use was continuous and apparent
4 Continuation of use is reasonably necessary or convenient to enjoy the dominant estate

Question 11

Frech v Piontkowski Prescriptive Easement OCAN

Answer 11

Facts
The dispute in Frech v. Piontkowski centers around the Obed Heights Reservoir, an artificial, non-navigable body of water created in 1890 by the construction of a dam on property owned by the defendants. The plaintiffs, Teresa A. Frech, Kenneth Andersen, and Amy Andersen, own land abutting the reservoir, and they, along with their families and predecessors, have used the reservoir for over twenty-five years for recreational activities such as boating, swimming, fishing, and ice-skating without the defendants’ permission. The defendants own the land under the reservoir and contested the plaintiffs’ right to use the reservoir, arguing that an abutting landowner cannot acquire a prescriptive easement for recreational purposes over an artificial body of water. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding they had acquired a prescriptive easement for noncommercial recreational use of the reservoir and held record title to disputed land abutting the edge of the reservoir or had acquired title to the disputed land by adverse possession.
Issue
Can an abutting landowner acquire a prescriptive easement for recreational use over a non-navigable, artificial body of water?
Holding
Yes, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that an abutting landowner can acquire a prescriptive easement for recreational purposes over a non-navigable, artificial body of water.

Question 12

Affirmative , Negative and Right of Way

Answer 12

Right to engage in use on anothers land is an affirmative easement

Right to limit or block use of another’s land is a negative easement

Right to prevent a neighbor for growing or adding an extra story to their building or property is an example of negative easment

A right to grant someone a right to use another property for a specific purpose- typically for passage or access

Question 13

Appurtenant Easements

Answer 13

run with the benfitted land and all those benefits go to all the legal occupancy

Question 14

Lobato v Taylor Prescriptive and Estoppel Easement

Answer 14

Issue: whether the farmland owners have a legal right to access and use the Taylor Ranch, and what type of access rights do they have.

Conclusion, the landowners have established prescriptive and estoppel claims for grazing firewood, and timber based on traditional settlement practices, prescription and intended grant by Beaubien. The court denies their claims for hunting and fishing and recreation rights, as the evidence was insufficient to establish a legal basis for their claims
The courts granted access for the firewood and things that were reasonable and rejected the hunting and fishing recreaitonal pieces. The court also went through all the emelemnts of statute of frauds for implied easment and applied each fact to prove or disprove.

Question 15

Granite Properties Ltd. Partnership v. Manns Implied Easement from Prior Use

Answer 15

Granite Properties Limited Partnership (Plaintiff) owned two parcels of land designated as “A” and “E”, which included a shopping center and an apartment complex, respectively. Both properties were developed prior to 1982, when a neighboring parcel “B” was sold to Larry and Ann Manns (Defendants). Two driveways existed on parcel “B”, one providing access to the rear of the shopping center on parcel “A” and the other leading into the parking area of the apartment complex on parcel “E”. The driveways had been used by the Plaintiff and its predecessors in title since the 1960s, when the properties were developed. After purchasing parcel “B”, the Defendants were notified by the Plaintiff to discontinue use of the driveways, leading to this legal dispute.
Issue
The main issue is whether, upon the severance of parcels previously under common ownership, the Plaintiff retained implied easements over the driveways located on the Defendants’ property (parcel “B”), for access to the shopping center and apartment complex.
Holding
The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision that the Plaintiff was entitled to easements by implication over the driveways in question. The court found that the driveways were necessary for the beneficial use and enjoyment of the Plaintiff’s properties and that the parties intended these easements to continue after the separation of ownership

Question 16

Finn v Williams right away easment of necessity

Answer 16

Facts
In the case of Finn v. Williams, the dispute centered around a tract of land in Salisburg Township, Sangamon County, owned by Charles H. Williams in 1895. Williams divided this land, selling 39.47 acres to Thomas J. Bacon. In 1937, Eugene E. Finn and Curtis Estallar Finn acquired this smaller tract, while Zilphia Jane Williams inherited the remaining 100 acres from Charles H. Williams. The Finns’ land had no direct access to a public highway and was surrounded by the land of others, including the 100-acre tract owned by Zilphia Jane Williams. Historically, access to a public highway from these lands was possible only through a right-of-way over what became Zilphia’s land and then through a third tract to the north. Over time, other private access routes through neighboring lands were closed, leaving the Finns without a means of ingress and egress for their farm operations. Zilphia Williams had denied the Finns access through her property since May 1939, prompting them to seek legal recognition of a right-of-way easement of necessity over Williams’ land.
Issue
The legal issue in Finn v. Williams was whether the Finns were entitled to a right-of-way easement of necessity over Zilphia Jane Williams’ land, given that their property had no other access to a public highway and the historical access routes through neighboring properties had been closed.
Holding
The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decree, recognizing the Finns’ right to a right-of-way easement of necessity over the 100-acre tract owned by Zilphia Jane Williams.