Also known as: servient parcels · servient tenement · servient estate
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Land burdened by an easement that benefits another parcel. The possessor of the servient parcel must allow the easement holder to exercise the rights granted by the servitude.
Apex Industrial Park LLC owns land uphill from a rail spur. Its predecessor recorded a written grant allowing trucks to cross the adjacent factory lot on a paved road. Nexus Manufacturing Corp later bought the factory lot and announced plans to block the road. The factory lot is the servient parcel, so Nexus takes title subject to the existing easement and cannot block the trucks.
O owns Blackacre and grants Pipeline Company an easement for a high-pressure gas line. O later grants A an easement for a road across the same land to reach Whiteacre. Blackacre is the servient parcel. When the pipeline needs maintenance, Pipeline Company must repair the portions under its control to avoid exposing O to third-party liability.
Spencer Silver sells part of his ranch to Sabrina Shah and retains a right of way across the sold parcel. Before the sale the sold parcel was used only for occasional cattle drives. After the sale the buyer begins regular heavy truck traffic. The prior limited use of the servient parcel helps determine whether the expanded traffic exceeds the easement's scope.
Samuel Soto owns the servient parcel crossed by an easement for pedestrian access to a neighboring lot. Soto plants low shrubs along the path that do not block passage. The shrubs are a permissible use because they do not unreasonably interfere with the easement holder's enjoyment of the servitude.
Sydney Santos conveys a strip of land to Steven Silva while retaining an easement for access. After the conveyance Santos begins using the servient strip for commercial deliveries instead of the prior residential use. The post-conveyance change in use of the servient parcel is relevant to whether the expanded activity remains within the easement's scope.
Will and Jean Brown own parcel B benefited by an easement across the Voss parcel. Brown later buys adjacent parcel C and begins using the easement to reach parcel C as well. The Voss parcel is the servient parcel. The easement may not be used to benefit the nondominant parcel C.
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 caseUnity of ownership extinguishes the easement to the extent the dominant owner can make the same uses by virtue of owning the servient parcel outright. Upon later sale of the servient parcel the easement does not automatically revive.
Supporting sources
The servient owner may use the land in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the easement holder's enjoyment of the servitude.
Supporting sources
When both parties use the same improvements on the servient parcel they must contribute jointly to reasonable repair and maintenance costs.
Supporting sources
Courts consider the use made of the servient parcel both before and after the conveyance when determining whether later expanded uses remain within the easement's scope.
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…