Also known as: appurtenant easements · easement appurtenant · easements appurtenant
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A nonpossessory right to use land of another that attaches to and benefits a particular dominant estate. The right passes automatically with transfers of possession of the dominant estate and cannot be used to benefit any other parcel.
Aisha Ahmed acquired a prescriptive right to cross a path on Andre Antoine's land to reach her own parcel. When Aisha later granted a life estate in her parcel to her daughter, the daughter continued using the path for the remainder of the prescriptive period. The right accrued to the benefit of both Aisha and her daughter as successive possessors of the dominant estate.
Apollo Energy held an appurtenant easement across Alliance Holdings' land to reach its own forty-acre tract. Apollo later purchased an adjoining parcel and attempted to route construction traffic from the new parcel over the easement. Alliance blocked the expanded use because the easement could serve only the original dominant estate.
Audrey Ashton granted an access easement to Amber Alonzo over her driveway to serve Amber's single-family home. Amber later subdivided the home site into four lots and built townhouses. Audrey could not enjoin the increased traffic because the subdivision constituted normal development of the dominant parcel contemplated at the time of the grant.
Aaron Adams owned a parcel benefited by an access easement across Anthony Arnold's property. Aaron purchased an adjacent lot without an easement and began driving across the servient land to reach the new lot. Anthony obtained an injunction because the easement could not be used to benefit land outside the original dominant estate.
On April 1, 1977, plaintiffs Will and Jean Brown purchased land designated as parcel B from the Christensens. Parcel B is adjacent to and north of land designated as parcel A owned by defendants Fred and Hattie Voss. Access to parcel B is from the south by means of a road that crosses several parcels including parcel A. The roadway easement across parcel A arose by express grant to the Christensens to provide access to parcel B. On July 31, 1977, the Browns purchased from the Rylanders the contiguous tract designated as parcel C north of parcel B. Parcel C was not a dominant estate with respect to the easement across parcel A. The Browns plan to build a residence that would straddle the property line between parcels B and C. The Browns began clearing parcels B and C in November 1977. They performed most of the preparation of the land for construction during the following spring and summer. To the existing easement road the Browns connected a new road that they had built across parcels B and C. After traversing parcel B, the new road crosses the line between parcels B and C and then loops back onto parcel B. The Browns have used the road in connection with their construction activities. In February and March of 1978, the Vosses erected a chain link fence along the side of the easement road. The parties stipulated that the fence was located upon the 16-foot-wide easement. Sometime in 1978, the Vosses placed obstructions on the easement road. In March 1979, the Browns sought damages and to enjoin the Vosses from interfering with their use of the easement. The Vosses counterclaimed, seeking damages for trespass and an injunction to stop the Browns from using the easement road to gain access to parcel C. Before trial, the parties agreed to relocate the easement. The trial court's order reflected this agreement by declaring that the plaintiffs have an easement of record. It consists of a strip of land 16 feet in width immediately west of the permanent chainlink fence for ingress and egress from the property of plaintiffs. The trial court denied the injunction requested by the Vosses. It ruled that the easement may be used for ingress to and egress from parcel C as long as the properties are developed and used solely for the purpose of a single family residence. The Vosses appealed from the judgment denying their counterclaim for an injunction to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two.
View caseYes. The easement is incidental to possession of the dominant tenement, so every succeeding possessor receives its benefit regardless of whether the transfer occurs by conveyance, operation of law, or even wrongful possession.
Supporting sources
No. An appurtenant easement may not be used for the benefit of property other than the dominant estate unless the creating instrument expressly provides otherwise.
Supporting sources
No. Each subdivided parcel succeeds to the same privileges of use that the original owner possessed, provided the increased use does not unreasonably burden the servient estate beyond what normal development contemplates.
Supporting sources
Courts presume the parties contemplated normal development of the dominant tenement. An increase in use is permitted if it reflects foreseeable changes and does not impose an unreasonable additional burden on the servient land.
Supporting sources
…Jean Brown, plaintiffs, owners of the dominant estate. Defendants requested the injunction to prevent plaintiffs from using an easement appurtenant to gain access to a nondominant estate adjacent to the dominant estate. We reverse and remand for entry of an injunction. On April 1, 1977, plaintiffs purchased land (parcel B) from the…