Also known as: servient tenement · servient estate
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A parcel of land whose possessor is subject to an easement benefiting the possessor of another parcel. The burden runs with the land and limits the servient owner's use to the extent it interferes with the easement.
Apex Industrial Park LLC owns land uphill from a rail spur. Its predecessor recorded an agreement allowing trucks to cross an adjacent factory lot on a paved road. Nexus Manufacturing Corp later bought the factory lot and tried to block the road. The factory lot is the servient tenement because its owner must allow the access that benefits the industrial park.
O owns Blackacre and grants Pipeline Company an easement for a gas line. O later grants A an easement for a road across Blackacre to Whiteacre. Blackacre is the servient tenement for both easements. The beneficiaries hold the duty to repair portions under their control to avoid unreasonable interference with either use.
Stephen Shaw conveys land to Sophia Singh while retaining an easement for driveway access over the conveyed parcel. Before the sale the parcel was already used as a driveway for Shaw's retained land. The conveyed parcel is the servient tenement, and its prior use as a driveway helps determine the scope of the burden that travels with the land.
Samuel Soto owns land subject to a recorded easement for an electric transmission line along its northern edge. Soto wants to plant trees and build a shed in that strip. The land is the servient tenement, so Soto may use it only in ways that do not unreasonably interfere with the power company's maintenance and operation of the line.
Sarah Sullivan conveys a strip of land to Stella Shapiro while retaining an easement for access. After the sale Shapiro widens the road on the conveyed parcel to accommodate larger vehicles. The conveyed parcel is the servient tenement, and its post-conveyance use helps measure whether the expanded traffic exceeds the original burden.
Will and Jean Brown own parcel B benefited by an easement across parcel A owned by Fred and Hattie Voss. Brown buys adjacent parcel C and begins using the easement to reach C as well. Parcel A is the servient tenement, so its owners may obtain an injunction when the easement is used to serve land 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 caseA servient tenement is the land burdened by an easement. A dominant tenement is the land benefited by that easement. The same parcel can be servient to one easement and dominant to another.
Supporting sources
Yes. When the same owner acquires both the dominant and servient estates, the easement is extinguished to the extent the owner can make the same use by virtue of owning the servient land outright.
Supporting sources
The servient owner may use the land in any way that does not unreasonably interfere with the easement. Joint use of improvements triggers a duty to share reasonable repair costs.
Supporting sources
Courts consider the use made of the servient tenement both before and after the conveyance that created the easement when determining the permitted extent of the burden.
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…