Bob s: Relevant Factors (p. 538)

Transcription

1 Eversole to Parman deed for Bob s store parcel did not grant Parman an express easement over parking lot Should the court have implied such an easement, based on prior use of parking lot by the Parmans and Weavers, when they were tenants? Bob s: Relevant Factors (p. 538) Whether the claimant is grantor or grantee of the would-be dominant land (why does this matter?) Extent of necessity to the claimant Whether reciprocal benefits accrue to both grantor and grantee Manner in which land was used prior to the conveyance (i.e., was prior use continuous?) Whether prior use was known to the parties (i.e., was it apparent?) 1

2 Some courts will imply an easement more readily by grant than by reservation. Why? Analogous to contract rule of interpretation that ambiguity is construed against drafter of contract (grantor is typically the drafter, and could easily have reserved express easement in his/her favor) In this case, though, the Eversoles drafted the deed (easement would arise by grant); no reason to construe deed against the Parmans Prior use was apparent, had been continuous, and was reasonably necessary for enjoyment of store parcel (no on-street parking on Main Street) But, says Court: an easement would only benefit the Eversoles as long as the servient parcel remained a parking lot; implying easement would impede future development of that parcel Court shouldn t readily assume or infer that the Eversoles agreed to that burden 2

3 Of course, when deeding the store parcel to the Parmans in 1971, if the Parmans were to have an easement over the parking lot, the Eversoles might have obtained a higher sale price from the Parmans Parking/access right, if good for customers, could enhance value of business/store parcel If so, wouldn t that premium be the reciprocal benefit associated with the easement? One view: yes, courts shouldn t readily imply easements Implying easements encourages shoddy deal documentation (parties should be clear/careful) Due to potential burden on servient land, ambiguity should be resolved against implication Who is harmed if we imply easements too generously? Is Bob s Correct? 3

4 Possibly harmed parties: (1) The Eversoles: if they didn t intend an easement to arise, they might not have received a premium from the Parmans when they sold them the store parcel (2) The Weavers: if they didn t realize the parking lot was subject to an implied easement, they might have overpaid for it (thinking there was no easement) But on the evidence here, neither the Eversoles nor the Weavers were actually harmed or misled Parmans didn t have an implied easement, so their use of the parking lot was only permissive (by license ), and licenses are generally revocable But, court says that Weavers were estopped from revoking [p. 551]. Does that make sense? Licenses and Easement by Estoppel 4

5 Rationale: the Parmans detrimentally and reasonably relied on the silence of the Eversoles when they built the rear entrance to their store and continued using the parking lot parcel for customer access Further, they will suffer irreparable harm (inability to recoup their expenses) if Weavers can now revoke How could Parman s reliance be reasonable, if Parman didn t have an express easement? Whether the Parmans reliance is reasonable is a contextual judgment E.g., maybe the Parmans thought (wrongly) that an easement had been created, but they didn t realize it had been omitted (inadvertently or intentionally) from the deed Also, the Weavers can hardly argue that the Parmans acted unreasonably, when Weavers did the very same thing when they bought their store (and behaved the same way)! 5

6 The London, KY Weaver s Hot Dogs Fire (Feb. 2, 2015) 6

7 Easement Scope Issues Who has to maintain an easement (or pay costs of maintenance)? When is use of an easement excessive? Can an easement be divided? Can the owner of the servient land relocate the easement if the easement holder objects? Suppose Charles Clayton (the servient owner in Alft) had graded and resurfaced his driveway after storm damage, at a cost = $2,500 He then sent his sister Gracie (the owner of the dominant estate) a bill for $2,500 Does Gracie have to pay it? 7

8 If agreement establishes explicit terms, it controls, but the Alft easement document was silent [p. 530] Default rules in case of silence: If the use is shared w/ the servient landowner, then the duty to maintain is also shared If use is not shared (easement holder is only user), then the duty rests solely on the easement holder Gracie would have to pay ½ of the bill attributable to shared portion of the driveway) 8

9 If the document creating the easement explicitly addresses the ability of the utility company to remove/trim trees (and extent of removal/trimming), the document controls The company could cut this tree down altogether, if the easement agreement so permitted If the document is silent (or there is no document, e.g., if the easement is prescriptive), then the ability of the utility company to trim trees is governed by the rule of reason Easement holder can make a reasonable use of servient estate, but can t unreasonably interfere with servient owner s possession and enjoyment Servient owner can enjoin unreasonable use (and/or recover damages for actual harm caused by it) Servient owner cannot unreasonably interfere with easement holder s use Easement holder may enjoin an unreasonable interference (and/or recover actual damages) 9

10 Suppose F owns a parcel of land, and has an easement of access over S s neighboring land F dies, F s children divide the parcel into 2 lots Does each lot have the benefit of the easement over S s neighboring parcel? Divisibility of an Easement Division of Appurtenant Easement Ordinarily, an appurtenant easement is appurtenant to the entirety of the dominant parcel Thus, if it is divided, presumptively each portion of the dominant parcel would be entitled to enjoy the easement over the servient estate Q: would use of easement by two persons involve an unreasonable increase in the burden on servient estate? 10

11 Same facts, but now suppose that F decides to subdivide the parcel and build 100 singlefamily homes Would each of those homeowners also get the benefit of the easement over S s neighboring parcel? Why or why not? Divisibility of an Easement 11