Servitudes

Question 1

Baseball

Answer 1

license v. lease, here was a grant

Question 2

Schwab

Answer 2

plaintiffs failed to establish easement through necessity or implication

Question 3

Holbrook

Answer 3

no evidence to show use of road was adverse, continuous, or uninterrupted – no easement by prescription

Question 4

Warsaw

Answer 4

one who has a valid prescriptive easement does not need to compensate landowners for fair market value of easement or cost of removing or relocating any encroaching structures which interfere with use of easement (inequitable, no prior notice)

Question 5

Penn Bowling

Answer 5

if nature and extent of an easement is unrestricted, dominant tenement may increase or enlarge use – but not in connection with other premises to which easement is not appurtenant

Question 6

Tulk

Answer 6

no horizontal privity so no real covenant - would be inequitable to allow purchaser to sell next day land at greater price without the covenant attached

Question 7

Neponsit

Answer 7

Covenant will run with the land despite intention of parties and will be enforceable against a subsequent purchaser of land by one who claims benefit of the covenant, assuming covenant fulfills certain legal requirements: grantor/grantee intended covenant to run with the land; covenant touches/concerns land with which it runs; there is privity of estate between promisee or party claiming benefit of covenant/right to enforce and promisor/party with burden

Question 8

Eagle Enterprises

Answer 8

covenant doesn’t touch/concern

Question 9

Sanborn

Answer 9

restrictive reciprocal negative easement (i.e. covenants/equitable servitudes)