Also known as: easements appurtenant · appurtenant easement · appurtenant easements
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A nonpossessory interest in land that benefits the possessor of a dominant tenement in the use or enjoyment of that land. The benefit passes automatically with transfers of possession of the dominant tenement and burdens the servient tenement.
Edward Everett acquired title to the dominant parcel by inheritance while his sister held a life estate in the same land. For the prescriptive period the prior possessor had used a path across Ella Emerson's servient parcel to reach the dominant land. The path easement now benefits both the life estate and the remainder interest held by Edward Everett.
Erika Echevarria owns the dominant parcel served by an access easement across Ezra Eastman's servient land. When Erika subdivides and sells one lot to a third party whose parcel was never part of the original dominant estate, the buyer may not use the easement to reach the new lot.
Emma Erickson purchased the dominant parcel that had been used for a single-family home when the easement across Eileen Epstein's servient land was granted by deed. After Emma converts the parcel into a small apartment building with increased but foreseeable traffic, the easement still permits the additional residential use.
Equinox Energy owns the dominant parcel benefited by an express access easement across Elemental Pharmaceuticals' servient land. When Equinox acquires an adjacent parcel and attempts to route construction traffic over the easement to reach the new land, the servient owner may enjoin the expanded use.
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. The benefit of an easement appurtenant is incident to possession of the dominant tenement and passes to every succeeding possessor, whether the transfer occurs by conveyance or by operation of law.
Supporting sources
No. Unless the creating instrument provides otherwise, an appurtenant easement may be used only for the benefit of the dominant estate and may not serve additional parcels.
Supporting sources
Yes. When an easement appurtenant is created by deed, it attaches to every part of the dominant estate and each subdivided parcel may continue to use the easement unless the instrument states otherwise.
Supporting sources
The parties to a conveyance creating an easement appurtenant are presumed to have contemplated normal development of the dominant tenement, so reasonable increases in use that accompany such development are permitted.
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…