Servitude Cases Flashcards
Willard v. First Church of Christ
Old CL Rule: Can’t create an easement in a third party
Rule: A grantor may reserve an interest in land to be granted, for use by a third party
Court held that this was an easement appurtenant determinable - church can use as long as its for church purposes
McGuigan reserved an interest for the Church when she sold her lot with the parking lot to Peterson. Peterson properly recorded this, thereby giving notice to the Willards. SO the Willards should have known that they were taking the lot subject to the easement.
- This would have been a “windfall” to Willard because he purchased for less value.
Holbrook v. Taylor
Rule: Where the owner of land has granted a license to another to use and make improvements upon the land, and the licensee, relying on this permission, does use and make improvements to the land at considerable cost, that license is irrevocable.
Taylor was building a house on his lot and got oral permission from his neighbor Holbrook to use his roadway to get to the house. Taylor’s workmen made it larger so that he could have access to his house. This went on for 5 years.
Then Holbrook asked Taylor to purchase the roadway. Taylor refused, so Holbrook put up chain.
Court: Revocation of the license would cause unjust enrichment to the license holder. Holbrook gave Taylor permission to use and make improvements on the road. Relying on this permission, Taylor incurred considerable costs maintaining and improving the road and building their house. Holbrook may not revoke.
Van Sandt v. Royster
Rule: An easement will be implied in favor of a grantor if:
- Common ownership in the land originally
- Prior use by the common lot
- Must be apparent upon inspection that the property contains the easment
- Must be necessity for continuing use
Van Sandt acquired his property through a deed which made no mention of an easement for sewage pipes. Gray and Royster’s sewage had to pass through VS’s property to get to street.
Court created an implied easement because the probable expectations of homeowners include having sewage lines.
Implied easements disappear if the properties are merged back to one lot or if they are no longer necessary
Brown v. Voss
Rule: The holder of an easement appurtenant cannot use the easement to benefit any parcel of land other than the dominant tenement (dominant land)
- The remedy for this violation is an injunction
Brown was owner of dominant tenement but decided to knockdown house and build a new one that extended beyond the dominant tenement.
Court held for Voss but did not issue an injunction because there was no change in the effect of the servient tenement, still 1 residence, no increase in traffic and no injury to Voss.
Tulk v. Moxhay
Rule: Created Negative Equitable Servitude
- Original promise was in writing
- Original parties intended that the burden would run to successors
- Successor had notice when they took possession
- Burden must touch and concern the land - affect parties as landowners
Tulk conveyed to Elms with restrictive covenant that LS will not be covered with any buildings. Land goes thru several conveyances until it ends up in Moxhay’s hands.
Deed to Moxhay did not contain the covenant but he had actual knowledge of it.
At the time of this case, the only way to establish privity of estate was through a L/T relationship
Court:
- Brushed aside P/E requirement - ES physically attach themselves to the land
- Brushed aside restrictions on negative easements
- Brush aside policy concerns about Real covenants overburdening the land
Said that Moxhay would be getting a “windfall” because he purchased and a lesser value
Neponsit v. Emigrant Bank
Rule: Created Affirmative Equitable Servitude
NPR conveyed deed to Deyer with covenant to pay annual fee for maintenance of common areas in the community. And that duty goes to the successors and assigns of that deed (intent).
- Deed also said that NPR will determine the amount of fees and that they may create NPOA and they will be assigned to collect the fees.
- Also said that payment of the fee will be a lien on the property.
Deed changed hands several times until Emigrant received it by foreclosing on the property. Refused to pay fee.
Issue: Touch and Concern?
2 Problems for court:
- This was an affirmative duty - normally ES involve restrictions
- Normally a duty to pay is. a personal act
Court: Test for T&C:
Does the covenant impose a burden on an interest in land that increases the value of a different interest in the same land?
- Yes the burden to pay benefits the common areas
Court pushed aside notion of Vertical privity of estate between NPR & NPOA:
- Deed expressly said NPR would do this
- NPOA is NPR’s agent
- “lets not elevate corporate form over substance” - lets not make too much of the fact that NPOA is a separate entity bc this is an equity court
Sanborn v. McLean
Rule: Implied Equitable Servitude:
- Subdivider had a general scheme
- Defendant had notice of the restriction contained in the prior deeds.
- inquiry notice here
