Also known as: burdened estates · servient estate · servient tenement
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A parcel of land whose owner is bound by a servitude or covenant to perform or refrain from specified acts. The burden runs with the land when the obligation is intended to bind successors and the other requirements for a running covenant or servitude are satisfied.
Baxter Dynamics owns a parcel crossed by a recorded access path. Boreal Energy holds an easement allowing its trucks to traverse the path daily to reach a loading dock. Baxter Dynamics must keep the path clear and cannot install gates that block the trucks. The parcel is the burdened estate because its owner is subject to the easement.
Bei Bai owns a historic warehouse subject to a recorded deed covenant permitting sale only to arts organizations. Bei Bai receives an offer from a commercial office developer at a premium price. The covenant directly restrains alienation of the warehouse. The warehouse is the burdened estate because the restraint limits its transfer.
Brendan Burns conveys a parcel to Brooke Bryant while retaining an easement for vehicle access. Before the conveyance the grantor had used a gravel strip on the parcel for occasional truck parking. After the sale Brooke Bryant objects when Brendan Burns begins daily parking. The prior use on the servient parcel helps determine the permitted scope of the easement.
Bright Path Foods holds an easement for a delivery road across land owned by Bay Area Systems. The road surface deteriorates and causes potholes that damage Bay Area Systems' adjacent fields. Bright Path Foods must repair the road to prevent unreasonable interference with the servient land. Bay Area Systems' parcel is the burdened estate.
Byron Bishop conveys a parcel to Brittany Bell while retaining an easement for foot access to a lake. After the conveyance Brittany Bell begins using the path for golf carts. The post-conveyance pattern of use on the servient parcel helps determine whether the expanded activity exceeds the easement's scope.
Benito Benitez owns a dominant parcel benefited by an access easement across land owned by Brendan Burns. Benito Benitez begins using the easement to reach an adjacent lot he recently purchased that is not part of the dominant estate. The extra lot is not entitled to the easement. Brendan Burns' land remains the burdened estate only for the original dominant 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 caseThe burdened estate is the land whose owner must comply with the servitude or covenant. The benefited estate is the land whose owner receives the advantage of the obligation. A single parcel can be both when mutual covenants exist.
A direct restraint is invalid if unreasonable. Reasonableness is assessed by balancing the restraint's utility against the harm it causes to alienability of the burdened estate.
The easement beneficiary must maintain portions under its control to avoid unreasonable interference or third-party liability. The servient owner has no affirmative duty to repair unless joint use creates a contribution obligation.
…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…