Easements

Not a regulatory taking and no compensation due when a town acquires an easement by prescription

The Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts held that a town can acquire an easement by prescription and that, if it does, no just compensation is due because no regulatory taking has occurred. Rather, the landower failed to object by suing for trespass or to give permission so the statute of limitations for ejecting the intrusion passed and the owner’s right to exclude was limited by statute and the doctrine of easement by prescription. The town did not “take” the property; the owner lost property rights by failing to take steps required by law to preserve those rights. Gentili v. Town of Sturbridge, 140 N.E.3d 391 (Mass. 2020).

Owner of power line easement may install fibre optic cables without exceeding the scope of the easement

In a case applying what appears to be the majority rule, the Seventh Circuit held that an easement for power lines included the right to install lines for other purposes — in this case fibre optic cables. West v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co., 951 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2020). The Texas Supreme Court rejected this approach, finding this kind of use to exceed the scope of the original easement, see Marcus Cable Associates v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697, 699 (Tex. 2002), but most courts that have addressed the question have agreed that a right to pass electric lines over property includes the right to pass lines for other purposes, such as cable television. This was true even though the original easement stated in its text that the easement was to place lines “for the transmission, distribution and delivery of electrical energy” — a type of use that does not extend to Internet …

Owner of power line easement may install fibre optic cables without exceeding the scope of the easement Read More »

Owner of power line easement may install fibre optic cables without exceeding the scope of the easement

In a case applying what appears to be the majority rule, the Seventh Circuit held that an easement for power lines included the right to install lines for other purposes — in this case fibre optic cables. West v. Louisville Gas & Electric Co., 951 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2020). The Texas Supreme Court rejected this approach, finding this kind of use to exceed the scope of the original easement, see Marcus Cable Associates v. Krohn, 90 S.W.3d 697, 699 (Tex. 2002), but most courts that have addressed the question have agreed that a right to pass electric lines over property includes the right to pass lines for other purposes, such as cable television. This was true even though the original easement stated in its text that the easement was to place lines “for the transmission, distribution and delivery of electrical energy” — a type of use that does not extend to Internet …

Owner of power line easement may install fibre optic cables without exceeding the scope of the easement Read More »

Easement by necessity available if the difficulty or expense of using a legally available route renders the land unfit for its reasonably anticipated use

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted an owner an easement by necessity even though the land contained a small strip connecting the land to a public way. Bartkowski v. Ramondo, 219 A.3d 1083 (Pa. 2019) (applying the Private Roads Act, 36 Pa. Stat. §§2731-2891. It did so on the ground that access need not be strictly necessary to get to the land for an easement by necessity to exist. All the owner need show is that access is not available that would allow ordinary uses of the property if the easement by necessity is not recognized. In this case, While mere inconvenience is not enough to show necessity, neither must the land be completely landlocked to take advantage of the doctrine of easement by necessity. “The central inquiry is whether, absent the recognition of an easement, the … dominant estate will be left without a means of ingress and egress, rendering the …

Easement by necessity available if the difficulty or expense of using a legally available route renders the land unfit for its reasonably anticipated use Read More »

Marketable title act extinguishes easement by necessity

In a surprising decision, the Vermont Supreme Court held that an easement by necessity must be recorded or it will be lost by operation of the state’s marketable title act. Gray v. Treder, 2018 VT 137, 204 A.3d 1117 (Vt. 2018). The facts of the case were unusual, however, because the easement in this case was not clearly visible by physical evidence of its use. That will ordinarily not be the case because easements by necessity are required to obtain access to the land and most owners will visibly use those easements to obtain access. In this case, however, because the landlocked ninety-acre parcel had remained undeveloped for the period defined by the Marketable Title Act. The court’s ruling was based on its interpretation of the statute and because it was bound by that statutory language. In addition, the statute provided the landlocked owner a method to preserve an easement by …

Marketable title act extinguishes easement by necessity Read More »

Owners cannot create easements in their own parcels

In Fitzpatrick v. Kent, 458 P.3d 943 (Idaho 2020), an owner of of two adjacent lots recorded a grant of an appurtenant easement over the servient estate for maintenance of a pond and irrigation system to benefit the dominant lot. The Idaho Supreme Court held that this purported grant of an easement was invalid since one cannot create an easement in one’s own property. So when the owner sold the servient estate, it was not subject to the easement because the deed given to the servient estate owner did not itself reserve the easement. It also did not matter that the servient estate owner was aware of the easement and impliedly agreed to it. The opinion places formality over substance, but is based on an old property law rule whose purpose is to ensure that easements (and covenants) are created at the same moment that the owner parts company with the land …

Owners cannot create easements in their own parcels Read More »

Grant of permission to use driveway 31 years after initial use did not defeat prescriptive easement claim

Owners who traversed a road over neighboring land to get to a public way for more than 30 years established a right to a prescriptive easement despite a grant of permission by the owner of the servient estate that occurred long after the statute of limitations had run. Betts v. Smith, 27 LCR 473, 2019 Mass. LCR LEXIS 187, 2019 WL 4546578 (Mass. Land Ct. 2019) (citing Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 187, §2 which defines the rules for obtaining an easement by prescription). There was no express easement since the party who granted the easement was the son of the owner and “one cannot convey what one does not own,” (citing O’Donoghue v. Commonwealth, 99 N.E.3d 843 (2018)). Nor could an easement by necessity be established because the original conveyance granted an easement that was never constructed and there was no evidence that that road would not have been adequate.

Constructed pond on mountainous terrain is an abnormally dangerous condition that renders owner strictly liable for damage caused when it ruptured after a storm and flooded the downhill property

The Montana Supreme Court held in Covey v. Brishka, 2019 MT 164, 445 P.3d 785 (Mont. 2019), that it was so obviously unreasonably dangerous to construct a 4.5 million-gallon constructed pond on a mountainous property that the owner was strictly liable for an “abnormally dangerous condition” when a storm caused a cascade of boulders and water onto the property lower down the hill.

Scroll to Top