Easements Flashcards Preview

Property > Easements > Flashcards

Flashcards in Easements Deck (93):
1

equitable limitation --> what is the SCOPE of your easement? (2)

1) is use of the kind contemplated? 2) place an unreasonable burden on the servient estate?

2

scope of E: use of kind contemplated: location (minority)

servient estate owner can change the location if s. pays for it

3

ending an e.: why do you need to?

easements are forever, unless ended

4

can't get e. by prescription bc it's not adverse or hostile? then try

otherwise if license could be e.b.e maybe

5

Green v. Lupo

F: P had easement over D's strip of land and using fro road, builds mobile home park and they are racing motorcycles H: the E. is appurtenant bc of presumption in favor (and wasn't clear from writing) N: ex. of e. being divisible also (applying to all the mobile home owners). Court did agree to equitable limitations--dnw undue burden on servient owner's estate, so ok limit motorcycle racing

6

ending an e: merger or unity of title

can't have an e. on your own land, so if they merge it's gone (if later land divided again you'd have to start over to try to get an e)

7

e. by necessity: dominant and servient estates formerly 1 parcel (qualifier) (2)

dnh to be immediately before in teh chain of title, and dnn prior use (ok easement be dormant for a time)

8

Lobato v. Taylor

F: CO landowners want easement to access Taylor property from back int he time of Mx law H: court finds e. (prescriptive, estoppel, AND prior use) --> previous use permitted, reasonable to foresee change in position (survival/food) and they DID change position (settle land) N: contextual interpretation vs formalist legal analysis

9

E. by estoppel: license by owner to use land

normally for access purposes

10

E. by estoppel c/c license

E. by estoppel starts out as license, goes on or so long and in such a way that it ripens into EBE

11

e. in gross

attaches to people

12

E. by estoppel: extra non-W element

fraud/deception on part of grantor

13

dividing e. appurtenant vocab

"divisibility"

14

easements vs licenses (and 1 exception)

E: formal, usu permanent, right, interest in land, subject to SoF, transferable -- licenses none of these But note: implied easesments are less formal, blurring the line

15

F: P claims easement over portion of gravel lot used by trucks to turn around H: prescriptive easement elements...dnh to prove area used w absolute precision, just generally where it was. (C AP: bc claim of right, must look at actual use to define Bs of easement

Community Feed Store Inc v. Northeastern Culvert Corp

16

Can e. be subdivided?: in gross: typical example

e. sold btwn utility cos

17

easements v. leases

lease: possessory rights to use defined space for all uses (unless otherwise specified), Easements are nonposessory

18

easement by prescription: elements (6)

Use must be: 1) actual 2) nonexclusive (contrast AP) 3) open and notorious 4) adverse/hositle under claim of right or color of title 5) continuous 6) for a statutory period

19

express easement: intent

by grantor, to run w the estate (if ambiguous, circumstances...)

20

easement by prescription (def)

similar to AP but at the end you get use instead of title

21

E. by estoppel: reasonable reliance: Define "reasonable" (6)

consider --conduct of parties, --oral assurances --social context --amount of time --if LL was expressly withholding e. and why --parties actions

22

easement: actual notice

eg a writing

23

Finn v. Williams

F: Ps have landlocked parcel, now can no longer exit over another's property so want E.B.N. over D's land (used to be 1 parcel) H: landlocked parcel can't waive its right to EBN even if it lay dormand through transfers of title

24

scope of e.: use of kind contemplated: location (majority/W)

majority/W: can't change the location of your easement --defined by grantor's intent and instrument at the time created

25

Can e. be subdivided: in gross: "exclusive" def

exculsive of the grantor

26

ending an e: marketable title acts

statutes aying that interests in land have to be re-recorded every x years (by true owner), otherwise not binding

27

the only ko transferable license

movie tickets

28

easement by prescription -- c/c AP element (2) and result

Element: PE is nonexclusive of true owner, AP exclusive 2) PE is USE, AP possession Result: 2) PE leads to non-fee interest (no-title)

29

can e. be subdivided? apurtenant

majority view: YES -- e benefits entire dominant estate and can be apportioned among subsequent owners

30

courts presumption: appertenant v. in gross?

strong presumption for appertenant

31

ending an e: express release

bargain for a k to end the e.

32

scope of easement: use of kind contemplated: territory of easement

usu can't expand territory of your easement (that would be an unreasonable buren...c)

33

express easement: in writing (4 requirements)

--subject to SoF --usu conveyed in deed but not required to be mentioned in subsequent deeds --must be written AT MOMENT CREATED --must specify: grantor, grantee, what easement is actually granting

34

can e. be subdivided? appurtenant: basic scenario

owner of dominant estate now wants to divide his estate (eg sell part of it to someone else, or create a subdivision...)

35

scope of e: use of kind contemplated: sub-elements in W (3)

1) RoW can be used for any reasonable PURPOSE 2) usu can't expand TERRITORY of e. 3) and can't change LOCATION of e.

36

how to interpret ambiguities in e.s?

language, circumstances

37

F: Ps have landlocked parcel, now can no longer exit over another's property so want E.B.N. over D's land (used to be 1 parcel) H: landlocked parcel can't waive its right to EBN even if it lay dormand through transfers of title

Finn v. Williams

38

E. by estoppel: elements (4)

1) license by the owner to use the land 2) licensor's knowledge or reasonable expectation that reliance will occur 3) reasonable reliance 4) necessary to prevent injustice

39

appurtenant e.

easement attaches to the land / runs with

40

implied easements run w the land IF (3) *a whole separate question!!

1) intended to do so (not just about what grantor wanted, more about circumstances etc as above) 2) reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of dominant estate but (3) relatively high standard for courts to find them

41

easement by prescription: adverse/hostile element

NO PERMISSION -- hard bar, bc ppl often grant neighbors permission tow alk over their land etc

42

servitudes

turns a k btwn 2 ppl about use of land into a k that RUNS WITH THE LAND when it's sold

43

How to end an e? (6 ways)

1) express release 2) by its own terms 3) merger or unity of title 4) abandonment 5) AP or prescription 6) marketable title acts

44

license examples

come over for dinner (until I revoke at end of nigth), swim in my lake

45

scope of easement: use of kind contemplated: minority view

limits e. to specific things listed (narrow)

46

F: P owns resort and old easement to owner who now wants to build subdivision on what used to be his single family parcel, wants to widen road. H: E. must be divisible or it would destroy its appurtenant character. E. not limited to use contemplated in original grant (acces/egress by single family) N: but they can't widen the road -- so opposite result, bc now can't build subdivision

Cox v. Glenbrook Co.

47

5 kinds of easements

1) express (the other 4 are implied): 2) prescription 3) implication 4) necessity 5) estoppel

48

affirmative servitude

right to use another's land for a limited purpose

49

scope of e: unreasonable burden on servient estate -- (and, distinct inquiry...)

grantor's intent distinct inquiry from use of kind contemplated (ex. Green--motorcycle use is of kind contemplated (it's a road) but still mgith be unreasonable burden (they're racing them)

50

profit a prendre

easement that lets nonowners collect resources (eg coal) from the land

51

express (formal) easement: elements (3)

1) in writing 2) intent 3) notice

52

scope of easement: use of kind contemplated: majority/W view (and an ex)

right of way can be used for any reasonable purpose --eg RoW road can be used for utility lines, and ok read broadly to accommodate changes in tech

53

e. by necessity: elements (3)

1) dominant and servient estate were formerly 1 parcel 2) at time of severence, dominant estate became landlocked 3) necessary

54

ending an e: AP/prescription

if someone else AP's your e. (ex. e. holder isn't using it, someone from another parcel starts benefitting from it)

55

servient estate

burdened parcel

56

Community Feed Store Inc v. Northeastern Culvert Corp

F: P claims easement over portion of gravel lot used by trucks to turn around H: prescriptive easement elements...dnh to prove area used w absolute precision, just generally where it was. (C AP: bc claim of right, must look at actual use to define Bs of easement

57

Cox v. Glenbrook Co.

F: P owns resort and old easement to owner who now wants to build subdivision on what used to be his single family parcel, wants to widen road. H: E. must be divisible or it would destroy its appurtenant character. E. not limited to use contemplated in original grant (acces/egress by single family) N: but they can't widen the road -- so opposite result, bc now can't build subdivision

58

e. in gross example

right to run the phone wires attaches to the utility co (NOT to another piece of land)

59

constructive trust

can force a person to do something w land for benefit of another --> alternative to e.

60

ending an e.: abandonment

owner of e. indicated by conduct intent to abandon the e. --> hard to show

61

F: P had easement over D's strip of land and using fro road, builds mobile home park and they are racing motorcycles H: the E. is appurtenant bc of presumption in favor (and wasn't clear from writing) N: ex. of e. being divisible also (applying to all the mobile home owners). Court did agree to equitable limitations--dnw undue burden on servient owner's estate, so ok limit motorcycle racing

Green v. Lupo

62

ending an e: by its own tersm

eg written e. says expires after x yeras

63

F: CO landowners want easement to access Taylor property from back int he time of Mx law H: court finds e. (prescriptive, estoppel, AND prior use) --> previous use permitted, reasonable to foresee change in position (survival/food) and they DID change position (settle land) N: contextual interpretation vs formalist legal analysis

Lobato v. Taylor

64

E. by estoppel: reasonable reliance: define reliance

claimant changed position in reliance on right (usu financially -- make investment etc)

65

E. by implication: use reasonably necessary (2)

--no absolute necessity standard --necessity burden is higher when grantor is the dominant estate (You're the one who sold the land, should've put it in the deed then) -- but not impossible (dominant estate holder had one in Granite Properties0

66

Easement by Implication, aka

easement by prior use

67

dividing e. in gross vocab

"apportionability"

68

constructive trust: example

Rose v. Castle Mtn Ranch: rancher lets peopel build cabins on his land but written licenses say revocable 30 days notice, they live there 50 years and he sells land. Remedy--they can stay 13 years

69

express easement: notice (3 kinds)

actual inquiry constructive

70

dominant estate

benefitted parcel

71

ean e. be subdivided? depends on:

appurtenant v. in gross

72

Granite Properties Limited Partnership v. Manns

F: P owned full parcel of land w shopping center and apartment building, sold in-between land to D but P wanted driveways to be e. H: Elements work together -- apparent and continuous helped fulfill elastic / necessity requirement

73

Henley v. Continental Cablevision of St Louis County Inc

Ps suing Ds who had e. to provide phone and elc but now want to add tv cables H: were E. in gross apportionable to other companies in the future? yes bc exclusive of servient owners

74

ending an e: abandonment: EXCEPTION

e.b. necessity can lie dormant

75

Ps suing Ds who had e. to provide phone and elc but now want to add tv cables H: were E. in gross apportionable to other companies in the future? yes bc exclusive of servient owners

Henley v. Continental Cablevision of St Louis County Inc

76

easement by prior use aka

easement by implication

77

easement: inquiry notice

knew or should've known, visible signs of use by nonowner on property

78

scope of e: unreasonable burden on servient estate: grantor's intent -- what to consider?

1) in document? 2) circumstances

79

easement: constructive notice

chain of title--reasonable search of registry would lead to discovery of the deed (again, knew or should've -- dn search registry isn't a defense)

80

servitude

private agreement between owners

81

negative servitude/easement

covenant, restriction on land use

82

Can e. be subdivided? in gross: 2 kinds

1) exclusive -- YES approtionable (you can sell e. to someone else 2) nonexclusive - nonapportionable (you can swim in my lake but I'm going to swim in it too...)

83

e in gross -- dom / serv estates?

no, dn exist

84

E. by estoppel element #2

licensor KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that reliance would occur

85

E. by implication: elements (3)

1) 2 parcels previously owned by common grantor 2) 1 parcel previously used for benefit of the other parcel in manner that was apparent and continuous 3) use "reasonably necessary" for the enoyment of the dominat esatate

86

easement: definition

nonpossessory interest to use land of another

87

can e. be subdivided?: contrast

just bc you bought a new piece of land next to your old land that was also going to need an e. (eg RoW) -- NOT expanded. But if you had divided your land, it would be

88

E. by estoppel: c/c prescriptive easement or AP

E.b.E: permission by grantor becomes basis for claim of right...vs in AP permission by grantor is a defense to rights of others

89

e.b. necessity: necessary

more than reasonably necessary -- higher standard (now usu means to get there w motorized transportation)

90

F: P owned full parcel of land w shopping center and apartment building, sold in-between land to D but P wanted driveways to be e. H: Elements work together -- apparent and continuous helped fulfill elastic / necessity requirement

Granite Properties Limited Partnership v. Manns

91

E. by estoppel: licensor's knowledge or reasonable expectation that reliance will occur (2)

grantor's intent: NOT did he intend for it to turn into an easement, sino did he allow the use? did they induce reliance? do they actually know that the other party is relying? would reasonable person know?

92

easement by prescription aka

"the adverse possession easement"

93

F: CO landowners want easement to access Taylor property from back int he time of Mx law H: court finds e. (prescriptive, estoppel, AND prior use) --> previous use permitted, reasonable to foresee change in position (survival/food) and they DID change position (settle land) N: contextual interpretation vs formalist legal analysis

Lobato v. Taylor