Also known as: servient lands · servient tenement · servient estate
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Land burdened by an easement. The possessor of such land must allow the easement holder to exercise the rights granted by the servitude.
Serena Soto owns a parcel crossed by a recorded right of way allowing Sean Steele to reach his inland lot. When Steele drives across the path daily, Soto cannot block the route because her land is subject to the easement. The servient status limits her ability to exclude Steele from the defined strip.
Skyline Construction holds an easement for a pipeline across Steven Silva's acreage. Silva must refrain from damaging the line, yet the company bears the duty to maintain the pipe and prevent leaks that could harm Silva's soil. The servient estate carries no affirmative repair obligation unless joint use arises.
Sydney Santos conveys a strip to Samantha Stone while retaining an access easement over the remainder. Before the deed, Santos used the strip only for foot traffic. The prior pattern on the servient land informs the scope of the easement retained after conveyance.
Silverline Industries owns land crossed by Sabrina Shah's recorded driveway easement. Industries may plant crops or park vehicles on the burdened area so long as those activities leave Shah's passage reasonably unobstructed. The servient status permits all uses that avoid unreasonable interference.
Southland Foods grants an easement across its loading area to Sierra Solutions. After the grant, Southland Foods begins storing pallets on the path each afternoon. The later storage on the servient land helps determine whether the new activity exceeds the easement's scope.
The Browns own a parcel benefited by an access easement over the Voss land. After acquiring an adjacent lot, the Browns route all traffic to the new parcel across the Voss path. The servient estate is not required to absorb the added burden from the nondominant parcel.
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 caseServient land is the parcel subject to the easement and must accommodate the easement holder's limited use. Dominant land is the parcel benefited by the easement. The distinction determines which owner holds the burden and which holds the benefit.
Supporting sources
The owner may use the servient land in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the easement. Uses that block or substantially impair the easement rights are prohibited.
Supporting sources
The easement beneficiary must repair and maintain portions under its control to avoid unreasonable interference or third-party liability. The servient owner has no duty to repair unless the parties share the improvement.
Supporting sources
Courts consider the use made of the servient land before conveyance when determining the easement's extent. That historical pattern supplies evidence of the parties' intent at the time of the grant.
Supporting sources
Post-conveyance conduct on the servient land is relevant to interpreting whether a new activity exceeds the easement's scope. Courts weigh that conduct along with the original grant language.
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…