Also known as: easement appurtenant · appurtenant easement · appurtenant easements
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An easement whose benefits attach to and run automatically with a particular parcel of land known as the dominant estate. The easement cannot be separated from ownership of that land and passes to each successive possessor of the dominant estate regardless of the manner of succession.
Emanuel Escobar adversely used a path across Evelyn Ellison's land for the full prescriptive period to reach his own parcel. When Emanuel later conveyed his parcel to Edith Eberhardt, Edith continued the same use. The easement created by prescription benefits Edith as the new possessor of the dominant estate.
Ezra Eastman held an appurtenant easement across Elijah Edwards's land to reach his own forty-acre farm. Ezra later purchased an adjacent lot and attempted to route traffic from the new lot over the easement. The easement may not be used to benefit the additional parcel.
Edward Everett received an express easement across Edgewater Capital's property for access to a rural farm. After the farm was subdivided into residential lots under a recorded plat, residents used the easement for daily commuting. The change constitutes normal development of the dominant estate contemplated at creation.
Eclipse Manufacturing owned a dominant parcel served by an appurtenant driveway easement across Echelon Security's land. Eclipse later acquired an adjoining lot and began using the driveway to reach the new lot as well. The servient owner may enjoin the expanded use that benefits property outside the 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. Every succeeding possessor of the dominant tenement is entitled to the benefit of the easement while it continues to exist, whether the succession occurs by conveyance or by operation of law.
Yes. An easement appurtenant created by prescription accrues for the period of its duration to the benefit of all those having interests in the land to which it is appurtenant.
No. Unless the creating instrument provides otherwise, an appurtenant easement may not be used for the benefit of property other than the dominant estate.
The interpreter assumes the parties contemplated a normal development of the use of the dominant tenement, so additional or different uses required by that development are permitted.
A grantor may provide that the benefit shall not pass, but the provision is effective only if the manner or terms of creation permit the easement to be changed into an easement in gross or extinguished.
…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…