Servitudes

Servient owner entitled to change easement location

/ Easements, Real Estate Transactions, Servitudes

The Vermont Supreme Court has adopted the rule promoted by the Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes), §4.8(3), allowing the owner of a servient estate to relocate an easement if this does not reduce the utility of the easement to the owner of the dominant estate. Roy v. Woodstock Cmty. Trust, Inc., 94 A.3d 530 (Vt. 2014). The case concerned an underground easement for water lines. The court also held that the dominant estate owner was entitled to build a housing complex and that this development did not exceed the scope of a right-of-way easement even though it had been originally used only by a church.

No easement by necessity when parcel is landlocked because of eminent domain

/ Servitudes, Takings

When a taking of property by eminent domain to build a highway bifurcated a parcel, one part became landlocked but obtained access to a public road by permission over neighboring property. When that permission ended many years later and the parcel became landlocked the owner sought an easement by necessity over the neighbor’s land but the court found the traditional requirements for such an easement to be lacking. Since the parcel had not become landlocked when severed from the neighboring land there was no basis for imposing an obligation on that neighbor to create an easement for access to the roads. Nor did the owner obtain a prescriptive easement because access to the land had been by permission. No claim was made for a constructive trust or easement by estoppel, alternative theories that might have been relevant if the owner of the servient estate had induced the owner of the …

No easement by necessity when parcel is landlocked because of eminent domain Read More »

No prescriptive easement for underground sewer pipe because the use was not open and notorious

/ Easements, Servitudes, Trespass

The Massachusetts Land Court has held that no prescriptive easement can arise no matter how long a sewer pipe has traversed a neighbor’s property because the non permissive use was not “open and notorious” and there were no other indications that the pipe was there. 143-145 Nahant Rd, LLC v. Mastoras, (Mass. Land Ct. 2014), 2014 WL 2548094, 42 Mass. Lawyers Weekly 1879 (July 7, 2014). With no easement, the use was likely a trespass although that was a question on remand.

Contractual power to modify condo declaration held to be complete defense to claim of deceptive conduct under state consumer protection law

/ Condominiums and Homeowners Associations, Consumer Protection, Real Estate Transactions, Servitudes

The Seventh Circuit found no deceptive conduct within the meaning of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) when a condo developer substantially changed the governing documents after the condo sales. Goldberg v. 401 North Wabash Venture LLC, 2014 WL 2579939 (7th Cir. 2014). The case concerned Trump Tower in Chicago which contains hundreds of residential condominium units and hundreds of hotel condominium units as well as substantial retail space and other facilities. The purchase agreement gave TrumpOrg the “right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to modify the Condominium Documents.” Writing for the three-judge panel and applying Illinois law, Judge Posner held that this clause was sufficient to immunize TrumpOrg from any claim of deceptive conduct. Thus the hotel condo owners had no rights when TrumpOrg “greatly curtailed the owners’ rights in the hotel facilities.” Nor did the conduct violate the statute governing condominiums.

Easement can be narrowed by servient estate owner

/ Easements, Servitudes, Statute of Frauds, Title Issues

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Martin v. Simmons Props., Inc., 2014 WL 128537 (Mass. 2014), that the servient estate owner is entitled to narrow an easement as long as this does not interfere with the uses for which the easement was initially created. The court applied the traditional rule that easements are encumbrances on land and to be construed narrowly. At the same time, the touchstone was the intention of the parties that created the easement, determined both by the language in the easement and the circumstances at the time of creation of the easement. Because the documents and plan creating the easement did not specify an exact width of the easement or require that it be kept open through its full extent, the easement owner was entitled only to such use as was needed to afford access to the dominant estate. The court also reaffirmed the traditional rule that …

Easement can be narrowed by servient estate owner Read More »

Injunction granted without balancing interests against owner who deliberately violated a covenant

/ Servitudes

The Rhode Island Supreme Court has held that an injunction can be granted to stop an owner from deliberately and knowingly violating a restrictive covenant. The traditional balancing of interests used to determine whether an injunction is appropriate need not be done when violation of a covenant is not inadvertent or unknowing. Cullen v. Tarini, 15 A.2d 968 (R.I. 2011). The court found that defendant knowingly violated a covenant that protected plaintiff’s view of the ocean. In such a case, plaintiff was entitled to an injunction to remove the offending structure despite the fact that defendant had already invested $1 million in the project. In effect, the court treated servitudes as important property rights owned by the servitude beneficiary and found they cannot be violated simply by paying damages. The beneficiary has a right to enforcement without any need to show that the benefits of enforcement outweigh the costs. The court limited …

Injunction granted without balancing interests against owner who deliberately violated a covenant Read More »

Homeowners’ Association dues lost because the property was taken by eminent domain are held not to be compensable under the takings clause

/ Estates and Future Interests, Servitudes, Takings

When a government took 14 units from a homeowners association by eminent domain, the remaining owners lost the dues and assessments that those owners would have contributed to the homeowners association. However, the Fifth Circuit has ruled that those lost assessments represent mere “contractual rights” that are not compensable under the takings clause as lost property rights even though they ran with the land. United States v. 0.073 Acres of Land, — F.3d —, 2013 WL 322242 (5th Cir. 2013). The court looked to Louisiana law to determine whether the assessments should be considered to be “property” rights and found that they were. However, it interpreted the case of United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U.S. 373 (1945) to mean that loss of future profits from land is not compensable. The court acknowledged that it was adopting a minority view and that most courts have held that covenants are property …

Homeowners’ Association dues lost because the property was taken by eminent domain are held not to be compensable under the takings clause Read More »

Implied beach easement found from recorded plans and sales statements

/ Easements, Real Estate Transactions, Servitudes

A Massachusetts court has held that owners of lots near the ocean had an implied easement of access to the beach because recorded plans drafted in 1892 showed an unenumerated lot with access to the ocean and the developer had advertised the lots as “Shore Lots” with a “Cool breeze all the time, good bathing, boating and fishing, nice beach, no undertow, shade trees on several of the lots.” Leahy v. Graveline, 82 Mass.App.Ct. 144, — N.E.2d —, 2012 WL 2819395 (Mass. Land Ct. 2012). The case represents an application of the recent decision in Reagan v. Brissey, 844 N.E.2d 672 (Mass. 2006) that similarly found implied rights to use open land depicted on a subdivision map.

Court affirms that nonuse does not extinguish an old easement

/ Adverse Possession, Easements, Real Estate Transactions, Servitudes

The Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has reaffirmed that even longstanding non-use of an easement will not extinguish it or cause it to lapse because of prescription. Cater v. Bednarek, — N.E.2d —, 462 Mass. 523 (Mass. 2012). To extinguish an easement by prescription requires acts inconsistent with the easement that put the easement owner on notice that its uses are being disrupted. Moreover, if the servient estate owner makes only part of an easement inaccessible, it is extinguished only as to that part but not the rest. In addition, the court held that, where a deed does not specify the dimensions of the easement, it must be interpreted to establish dimensions that are reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant estate; the easement is not limited to the purposes for which the dominant estate was used at the time the easement was created. Moreover, if the easement …

Court affirms that nonuse does not extinguish an old easement Read More »

Scroll to Top