Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
30 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Easements |
A right of use over the property of another.
A non-possessory interest in another’s land that entitlesthe holder only to the right to use |
|
|
Land Use Restrictions |
An owner might agree to restrict the use of his land by creating a real covenant or an equitable servitude. |
|
|
Types of Easements |
-Express easement -Implied easement by prior existing use -Easement by necessity -Prescriptive easement -Easement by estoppel (irrevocable license) |
|
|
Express Easement |
Clearly stated in a contract, deed, or will. A product of a voluntary transaction. Arises only with the agreement of the owner whose land is burdened. The remaining four are imposed as a matter of law WITHOUT the owner's agreement. |
|
|
Dominant Tenement/ Dominant Land |
The land benefitted by the easement. - "A" Ex: A owns Greenacre; want the right to travel across B's land to reach it. B grants A an easement over his land. |
|
|
Servient Tenement/ Servient Land |
The land burdened by the easement. - "B" Ex: A owns Greenacre; want the right to travel across B's land to reach it. B grants A an easement over his land. |
|
|
Appurtenenat Easement |
Benefits the holder in her use of a specific parcel of land, the dominant tenement. In order for it to exist, there must be multiplepieces of land owned by different parties. An easement appurtenant is a covenant running with the land;it is incapable of a separate existence from the land to which it is annexed. Ex: A's easement is appurtenant because it benefits A in her use of Greenacre. |
|
|
Easement in Gross |
Is not connected to the holder's use of any particular land; rather, it is personal to the holder. Arises when a servient piece of land existswithout a dominant piece being affected. This type of easement is ordinarily personalto the holder and does not run with the land (not connected to any specificestate in land). |
|
|
Easement by Grant |
Servient owner grants easement to dominant owner. |
|
|
Easement by Reservation |
Dominant owner grants serivent land, but retainseasement on that property. |
|
|
Millbrook Hunt, Inc. v. Smith |
An agreement is an easement if the parties sufficiently expressed their intent to reserve a permanent right to the land. Facts: MillBrook, a fox hunting organization dedicated to the old ways, secured a 75 year lease and easement agreement to use ¼ acre of Smith's land for hunting.• Upon Smith's death, his son, attempting to make a wildlife reserve and against hunting, ejected the hunters from the property while they were performing routine inspections. MillBrook seeks affirmation of easement.
Issue:Under NY law, does labeling an interest an easement make it so when a right to hunt on a portion of land is granted, and the son of the landowner objects and rejects the agreement? Holding:Yes. The court holds that there is a difference between an easement and a license and the hunt possesses a 75 year easement.
Reasoning:Labeling an easement such does not make it so.An easement is an interest in land ordinarily created by a grant and permanent in nature.A license is a personal privilege which may be revoked by the land owner at any time.This is an easement because it is for a specified period of time; it specifically provides for a 75 year period. As well the parties sufficiently showed their intent to construct an easement to reserve a right to hunt the fox. |
|
|
License |
A personal privilege to use the land of another for some specific purpose. Generally, revocable. |
|
|
Easement |
Non-posessory right to use the land of another person. Not revocable. |
|
|
Van Sandt v. Royster |
Rule of Law: An easement is implied to protect the probable expectations of the grantor and grantee that a prior existing use will continue after the transfer. Thus, where the grantee is aware of a reasonably necessary use of the grantee’s property for the comfortable enjoyment of the grantor’s property an easement by implication is created. Facts. The Plaintiff owns lot 19 and the Defendant owns lot 20. Both lots were part of the adjacent estate, lot 4, which was owned by Bailey in 1903-1904 and is now owned by Gray. Bailey constructed the pipe in late 1903 or early 1904 for the common benefit of all three lots. At that time, it was all one property so there is no dominant / servient estate. Lot 19 was conveyed in January 1904 and Lot 20 was also conveyed in 1904. The original conveyee of Van Sandt’s land was aware of the lateral sewer. Issue. Is there an apparent easement even though the sewer drain pipe is not readily visible?Can a common owner make use of part of his land for the benefit of another part, thereby creating a quasi-easement, which creates an easement by implied reservation upon severance of the servient estate from the dominant one? Held. An apparent easement existed. An easement need not be visible to be apparent. Appliances connected with and leading to the property were obvious adaptations of the property that led to a sewer. The Plaintiff purchased the property upon careful inspection and knowledge that the property had modern plumbing. Plaintiff was thus charged with notice of the sewer.An easement by implication was created. The easement was necessary for the comfortable enjoyment of the grantor’s property (Bailey, the common owner, installed the plumbing for the benefit of all three lots). If the land cannot be used without disproportionate effort and expense an easement may still be implied in favor of the grantor or grantee on the basis of necessity alone. The original purchaser was aware of the sewer and thus there were reasonable expectations concerning the prior existing use. |
|
|
`Implied Easement |
-determined by the courts based on the use of a property and the intention of the original parties, who can be private or public/government entities -are not recorded or explicitly stated until a court decides a dispute, but reflect the practices and customs of use for a property -Courts typically refer to the intent of the parties, as well as prior use, to determine the existence of an implied easement |
|
|
Implied Easement by Prior Existing Use |
Three elements usually required are: (1) severance of title to land held in common ownership (2) an existing, apparent, and continuous use of one parcel for the benefit of another at the time of severance; and (3) reasonable necessity for that use. |
|
|
Apparent Use |
The requirement of an apparent use is intended to ensure that the parties know that the use exists before the conveyance, so that the party to be burdened has the opportunity to object. If neither party objects to an existing and apparent use, then they probably intended that it continue after the conveyance. Here, Jones had actual knowledge of the sewer line at the time he purchased lot 19, which substitutes for a use which is apparent. |
|
|
Berge v. Vermont |
Facts: Plaintiff would access his property by car and then run across the WMA to his property. State placed a gate across Route 114 access road, depriving the plaintiff of overland access to his property. Plaintiff claims that the 1959 deed created an easement by necessity. D says P had water access. Holding: Common Law: when as the result of a division of commonly owned land, one parcel is left entirely without access to a public road, the grantee of the landlocked parcel is entitled to a way of necessity over the remaining lands of the grantor or his successors in title. |
|
|
Easement by Necessity |
Test: (1) Severance of title to land in common ownership. (2) “Strict necessity” for the easement at the time of severance. - Majority: no legal right to access - Modern trend: Lack of reasonably practical access; access is deemed too difficult or unreasonable - Look at: Ease; Frequency; Scope |
|
|
O'Dell v. Stegall |
. |
|
|
Prescriptive Easement Suppose that G crosses H's property in an open and notorious manner in order to reach his own land. If G continues this conduct for a sufficient period, he may obtain a prescriptive easement. Just as land may be acquired by adverse possession, an easement may be by similar conduct. |
Test: (1) Open and notorious; (2) Hostile (Adverse);•“creates a cause of action by the owner against the person claiming the prescriptive easement” (3) Continuous for Statutory Period |
|
|
Kienzle v. Myers |
(neighbor wanted to connect sewer line to street, but neighbor said just use mine, don't' waste the money on your own line) An easement by estoppel may be found when an owner of a property misleads or causes another in any way to Rx change the other's position to his or her prejudice and detriment to restore |
|
|
Easement by Estoppel (Irrevocable License) |
Test: (1) a landowner allows another to use his land, thus creating a license; (2) the licensee relies in good faith on the license, usually by making physical improvements or by incurring significant costs (3) the licensor knows or reasonably should expect such reliance will occur. |
|
|
Marcus Cable Assoc. v. Krohn |
Issue: Whether an easement that permits the holder to use the private property for purpose of constructing and maintaining "an electric transmission or distribution line or system" allows it to be used for cable television lines. Rule: When a grant's terms are not specifically defined they should be given plain ordinary meaning, to delineate the purpose for which the easement holder may use the property. Held: No, the easement must remain effective to the purpose it was granted for. Otherwise, it could become effectively possessory. The purpose the parties intended is most important, regardless of public benefit. Even if the attachment of the wires does not burden the owner any more so. The attachment of the wires was an unauthorized presence on the land |
|
|
Interpreting Easements |
Look at grantor’s intent If terms not specifically defined, they should be given plain, ordinary, and generally accepted meaning. Easement's use may change over time to accommodate technological (and normal) development -Manner -Frequency -Intensity Changes must fall within the purposes for which the easement was created, as determined by the easement language. |
|
|
Terminating Easements |
Own terms (e.g., 75 years) •Condemnation: governmental body exercises its right of eminent domain to acquire private property for public use •Estoppel: servient owner substantially changes position in reasonable reliance of easement holder’s stmt it won’t be used •Merger: one person obtains title to both easement and servient land •Misuse: may cause forfeiture •Release: dominant owner may draft written agreement (SOF) to servient owner to discharge easement •Abandonment |
|
|
Preseault v. United States |
Rule of Law: A public recreational trail was not within the scope of an existing easement for railroad purposes. Therefore, the conversion to public recreational trail was a taking of a new easement for a new purpose, for which the landowners are entitled compensation. In addition, since the easement was abandoned, the opening of the public recreational trails was also a physical taking of the Plaintiffs’ property rights. Facts. Plaintiffs have a fee simple interest in a tract of land near the shore of Lake Champlain in Burlington, Vermont over which the tracks ran. The original rights of way were acquired by the Rutland-Canadian railroad company. Rails-to-Trails was not a program of direct acquisitions because Congress believed that only some conversions would be takings since most rights-of-way were held as fee simple. Vermont Railway removed the tracks and railway equipment from the land in 1975. Since 1975, it collected some licensing fees from the Plaintiffs to establish a fixed crossing. Issue. Did the Railroad acquire only an easement or a fee simple estate in the railroad right of way?If it acquired an easement, was the easement limited to railroad purposes only or was it broad enough to encompass future use as public recreational trails?Had the easements terminated by abandonment prior to the ‘taking’ for public recreational trail use? Held. Under Vermont property law, the estate acquired by a railway is no more than is needed for the railroads limited purpose and that typically means an easement not a fee simple estate.Since the easements are limited as a matter of law to railroad purposes, the Court could not find that the scope of easement would encompass a public recreational trail.Vermont recognizes that simple non-use does not extinguish an easement, something more is needed such as conduct by the owner manifesting a present intent to relinquish the easement or a purpose inconsistent with future existence. However, removal of the tracks and equipment was inconsistent with future existence and no attempts were made to reconstruct. The limited collection of licensing fees for crossing was not enough to defeat the abandonment. |
|
|
Abandonment |
(1)nonuse of the easement plus (2) acts by the owner manifesting “either a present intent to relinquish the easement or a purpose inconsistent with its future existence.” |
|
|
Easements |
•Entitle owner to enter land possessed by someone else for specific limited purpose •Generally considered a conveyance of limited use of land – there is a grantor and grantee, and the instrument used to create the easement is either a deed or something that resembles a deed (or the easement is implied via certain actions) |
|
|
Real Covenants |
•Does not allow the person benefited by the covenant (covenantee) to enter the covenantor’s land •Not a conveyance – instead, a writing that creates a contract that may become tied to one or more parcels of land (and “runs” with the land)•Serve as primary tools for land use planning in the neighborhood context |
