Easements Flashcards
Mitchell v Castellaw
(Stapp owned three lots of real estate and leased one lot for the operation of a gas station. Stapp conveyed one lot to the predecessors in interest of D by a warranty deed that contained a clause: “It is expressly agreed and understood that grantees, their heirs or assigns, shall not build or permit anyone else to construct any type of building or anything else on the portion of lot described as follows; and that grantee shall have the right to use this part of said lot as a driveway.”)
When evidence demonstrates a grantor’s intent to create an easement that runs with the land, the absence of words of inheritance will not defeat the creation of an appurtenant easement
Reading the deed as a whole and considering evidence that the easement area has long been used for access to the gas station property + that the location/area of the easement make its purpose clear Appurtenant > In gross
Baseball Publishing Co. V. Bruton
(Baseball Publishing Company (BPC) made a deal with Bruton to put an ad sign on Bruton’s building. The deal said BPC could advertise there for one year for $25, and could renew this deal for up to four more years. Bruton signed the deal but didn’t seal it. BPC put up the sign and sent Bruton $25, but Bruton sent the money back and took down the sign. BPC sued Bruton, saying the deal was a lease.)
A contract that allows a party to engage in a particular use of land creates an easement in gross.
An easement in gross is an interest in land that does not attach to the land. A lease transfers a possessory interest in land and must be established in writing to comply with the statute of frauds. A license authorizes a person’s presence on land—but does not convey an interest in land—and may therefore be conveyed orally. The essence of a license is that it is revocable at the licensor’s will.
Finn v Williams
(P acquired titled to a conveyed part of land while D inherited the remaining part of the same land. The only way that P could get to the nearest highway and market was by crossing over D’s land or a stranger’s land. D refused to give P permission, so P sued seeking declaratory judgment granting P an easement by necessity over D’s land.)
An easement by necessity implied with a transfer of land may go unused through subsequent transfers of the land, but still be exercised at any time by the title holder.
Easement by necessity is implied if the only way to access highway is over the conveyor’s land or stranger’s land
(1) Severance of title to land held in common ownership
(2) Reasonable necessity 1. Easement must be convenient or beneficial to normal use and enjoyment of the dominant land 2. Applicable to non-road purposes (like utility lines, which the traditional approach does not deem applicable)
Granite Properties v Manns
(P owned large property that included a mall, apartment complex, and each building’s driveway. P sold to D a part of the tract between the apartment building and mall. The two driveways were on the land conveyed to D and used by P for many prior. The driveways were needed for the mall to properly function and for residents to access the parking lot. After D bought the tract, D told P to stop using the driveways so P sued to prevent D from interfering with P’s use of the driveways.)
Implied easement may arise from a grantor’s continuous and apparent preexisting use of property conveyed by the grantor, even if the easement is not necessary for the beneficial use and enjoyment of the property retained by the grantor
Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic
(Warsaw and Chicago Metallic Ceilings, Inc. (CMC) owned properties next to each other. Warsaw built a big building with a driveway that was too small for trucks to use without also using some of CMC’s land. From 1972 to 1979, trucks used CMC’s land to get to Warsaw’s loading dock. Warsaw tried to get an easement from CMC but was unsuccessful. In 1979, CMC started to build a warehouse on its land, blocking Warsaw’s use of it. The court found that Warsaw had a prescriptive easement over CMC’s land and ordered CMC to remove the part of the building that was in the way.)
If a person acquires a prescriptive easement, the landowner may be required to remove a structure that encroaches on the easement and pay for the structure’s removal.
A prescriptive easement is established if property use is open, notorious, continuous, and adverse for an uninterrupted five-year period.
Also, the easement’s existence must be shown by a definite and certain line of travel. The doctrine of prescription seeks to protect and stabilize long-term continuous use against an owner’s claim for damages.
Fountainbleau Hotel Corp v. Forty-Five (Hotel blocking sunlight lol)
A property owner may be prevented only from causing injury to a neighbor’s rights to property that are protected by law, and there is no legal right to the flow of air and light from a neighboring property.
Lindsey v Clark
(D owned four lots and sold two lots to his daughter. D’s daughter built house on D’s easement that D mistakenly thought was on north side (actually on south side according to deed). D’s daughter conveyed it to X and X conveyed it to P.)
i. Mere nonuse of an easement does NOT meet the standard for termination by abandonment
ii. This is an intent doctrine – Need to affirmatively form the intent to abandon Not knowing where E was is insufficient b/c it lacks intent to abandon
iii. Abandonment will be found if the owner:
a. Stops using the E for a long period (no statutory period) of time, and
b. Takes other actions that clearly manifest intent to relinquish E
Gallagher v. Bell
(D bought land from Sisters of Mercy and in the contract agreed to dedicate part of that land for street construction and pay pro rata share of construction costs. It was further agreed that the contract would be binding on D and D’s “heirs, successors, and assigns” and that its provisions would “survive the execution and delivery of the deed.” D entered into a separate agreement with P affirming assumption of obligations of the covenant. D sold land to C, who knew of the covenant and demanded an indemnification agreement as a condition of sale. P made demand on C for the construction costs but C refused, on the basis of C’s indemnity agreement, so P demanded money from D but D refused too so P sued.)
A covenantor’s obligation to perform under a covenant that runs with real property ends when the covenantor conveys the real property, so long as the parties to the conveyance intend for the covenantor’s obligation to terminate upon conveyance.
Neponsit v. Emigrant
(Neponsit Realty Company subdivided a plot of land for residential development. The deeds contained a covenant requiring the purchaser and all successors to pay an annual fee to an owners’ association for maintaining common areas like roads and other public purposes. The covenant gave Neponsit or its successors or assigns the right to foreclose a lien for failure to make payment. The covenant expressly stated that it was a real covenant running with the land. P (homeowners’ association) was formed. D (a bank) bought a property in the subdivision. D’s deed contained the covenant. D failed to pay the fee and P sued to foreclose on the lien but D counterclaimed and moved for dismissal. )
(1) A covenant contained in a deed requiring the payment of money “touches and concerns” the land if it substantially affects the rights of the parties as landowners. (2) Privity of estate will exist in substance if not in form between property owners and an owners’ association if the association is acting as a medium through which enjoyment of a common right is preserved.
Eagle Enterprises, Inc. v. Gross
Tulk v. Moxhay
Sprague v Kimball
Sanborn v. McLean
Snow v Van Dam
Penn v. Mahon
Penn v. New York
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
