Also known as: servient properties · servient estate · servient estates · servient tenement
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Land burdened by an easement that permits limited use by the owner of another parcel. The possessor of the land remains subject to the easement and must avoid unreasonable interference with its enjoyment.
Sylvia Santos purchased a parcel that a prior owner had burdened with an express easement allowing a neighbor to run an irrigation pipe across it. When Sylvia later attempted to block the pipe, the neighbor sued to restore access. The court treated Sylvia's land as the servient property and enforced the easement against her as the current possessor.
Stella Shapiro granted Sentinel Security an easement to maintain a pipeline across her ranch. After a storm damaged the line, Sentinel repaired only the segment under its control. Stella sued for contribution toward joint repairs. The court held that the servient property owner had no duty to repair but could require the easement beneficiary to maintain the portion it controlled.
Steven Silva conveyed part of his farm to Scott Summers while retaining an easement for access. Before the sale the retained parcel had been used only for occasional foot traffic. After the conveyance Steven began driving heavy equipment across the servient land. The court examined the pre-conveyance use of the servient property to determine whether the expanded activity was permitted.
Summit Bank owned land subject to a recorded right-of-way easement held by Spectrum Financial. The bank erected a fence that narrowed but did not block the path. Spectrum sued claiming interference. The court ruled that the servient property owner could make any use that did not unreasonably interfere with the easement holder's enjoyment.
Skylar Sullivan bought a parcel already subject to an easement for a buried cable. After the purchase Skylar planted trees directly over the cable route. The easement holder sued for removal. The court considered the use made of the servient property after the conveyance to assess whether the planting unreasonably burdened the easement.
Selena Singh owned the servient parcel burdened by an easement appurtenant to an adjacent lot. The dominant owner began using the easement to reach a newly acquired neighboring tract as well. Selena erected a barrier at the boundary. The court enjoined the expanded use because the servient property was not obligated to serve land beyond 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 caseServient property is the land subject to an easement, while dominant property is the land benefited by the easement. The servient owner must permit the limited use but retains all other rights not inconsistent with the easement.
Supporting sources
The servient owner may use the land in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the easement beneficiary's enjoyment. Obstructions that materially impair the easement are prohibited.
Supporting sources
The easement beneficiary must repair and maintain portions under its control to prevent unreasonable interference or third-party liability. The servient owner has no affirmative repair duty unless the parties agree otherwise or joint use creates contribution obligations.
Supporting sources
Courts examine the use of the servient property both before and after conveyance to determine the scope of an easement created by deed. Changes in use after conveyance are evaluated against the circumstances existing at the time of the grant.
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…