Also known as: servient estate · servient tenement · servient tenements
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A parcel of land subject to an easement that benefits another parcel. The possessor of the servient estate must allow the easement holder to exercise the rights granted by the servitude.
Serena Soto owns a parcel crossed by an underground utility line serving Sylvia Santos's adjacent farm. When Serena attempts to block access to the line, the court recognizes her land as the servient estate because it is subject to the easement benefiting Sylvia's property.
Sarah Sullivan holds an easement for a pipeline across Steven Silva's ranch. After a leak damages the pipeline, Sarah must repair the affected portion of Steven's land because the beneficiary of the easement bears the duty to maintain the servient estate under her control.
Scott Summers conveys land to Simon Stern while retaining an access easement. The prior use of the servient tenement for foot traffic before the conveyance limits the easement to pedestrian passage rather than vehicle use.
Synergy Systems owns land burdened by a recorded right-of-way. The company plants crops on the servient estate outside the path used by Sapphire Technologies, because the servient holder may make any use that does not unreasonably interfere with the easement.
Sterling Manufacturing acquires the servient parcel after an easement for drainage is created. Continued agricultural use of the land after the conveyance confirms that the easement permits only surface water flow and does not authorize new subsurface pipes.
Sierra Solutions owns the dominant parcel with an access easement across the neighboring servient estate. When the company attempts to use the easement to reach an additional parcel it recently acquired, the servient owner obtains an injunction because the easement may not 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 caseThe servient estate is the land burdened by the easement, while the dominant estate receives the benefit. The possessor of the servient estate must permit the limited use authorized by the servitude.
Supporting sources
The servient estate owner generally has no duty to repair or maintain the easement area unless the parties agree otherwise or joint use creates shared contribution duties.
Supporting sources
Yes. The servient owner may make any use of the land that does not unreasonably interfere with the easement holder's enjoyment of the servitude.
Supporting sources
Courts consider the use made of the servient tenement both before and after the conveyance creating the easement when determining the permitted scope of the servitude.
Supporting sources
…Reed, J.; Petrich, C.J., and Petrie, J., concur Opinion of Reed, J. Defendants, Fred and Hattie Voss, owners of the servient estate, appeal from a judgment that denied their counterclaim for an injunction against Will and Jean Brown, plaintiffs, owners of the dominant estate. Defendants requested the injunction to…