Also known as: appurtenant easement · easement appurtenant · easements appurtenant
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An interest in land that entitles its holder to limited use of another's land for the benefit of a dominant estate. The easement passes automatically with transfers of possession of the dominant estate and may not be used to benefit any other parcel.
Austin Abbott used a path across Angela Acosta's orchard for twenty years to reach his farm. When Abbott sold half the farm to Audrey Ashton, Ashton continued using the path for deliveries. Acosta blocked Ashton, claiming the prescriptive right belonged only to Abbott personally. The court held that the appurtenant easement created by prescription accrued to all interests in the dominant land, so Ashton could use the path.
Apex Dynamics owned Whiteacre and held an appurtenant easement across Alpine Mining's land for access to a highway. Apex later subdivided Whiteacre into residential lots and attempted to route construction traffic from an adjacent parcel through the easement. Alpine blocked the extra traffic. The court ruled that the easement could not serve property other than the original dominant estate.
Alexandra Armstrong conveyed an easement across her pasture to allow Aaron Adams access to his rural parcel for farming. Adams later converted the parcel into a small residential subdivision with daily commuter traffic. Armstrong sought to limit the easement to agricultural use only. The court permitted the increased residential use because the original grant contemplated normal development of the dominant tenement.
Will and Jean Brown owned parcel B benefited by an appurtenant easement across the Voss property for access. The Browns purchased adjacent parcel C and began using the easement to reach both parcels. The Voss family obtained an injunction. The court held that the easement could serve only the dominant estate and could not be extended to the nondominant parcel.
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 caseYes. One who succeeds to possession of the dominant tenement succeeds to the privileges of use authorized by the easement unless the terms or manner of creation prevent succession. The easement is incidental to possession of the dominant land and passes with every transfer of possession, whether by conveyance or operation of law.
Supporting sources
No. Unless the creating instrument provides otherwise, an appurtenant easement may not be used for the benefit of any parcel other than the dominant estate. Use that extends the easement to nondominant land exceeds the scope of the grant and may be enjoined.
Supporting sources
No. When an easement is created by conveyance, the parties are presumed to have contemplated normal development of the dominant tenement. Reasonable increases in use that accompany such development remain within the scope of the easement.
Supporting sources
Yes. Every succeeding possessor of the dominant tenement is entitled to the benefit of the easement while it continues to exist, regardless of whether the succession is rightful or wrongful.
Supporting sources
…Jean Brown, plaintiffs, owners of the dominant estate. Defendants requested the injunction to prevent plaintiffs from using an easement appurtenant to gain access to a nondominant estate adjacent to the dominant estate. We reverse and remand for entry of an injunction. On April 1, 1977, plaintiffs purchased land (parcel B) from the…