Also known as: praedii servientis · servient tenement · servient estate
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A parcel of land subject to an easement or servitude that benefits another parcel. The possessor of the land must permit the limited use authorized by the easement and may not unreasonably interfere with that use.
Pierce Patterson owns a ranch crossed by an underground gas line. Prism Analytics holds an express easement allowing it to maintain the line. When Patterson attempts to build a barn directly over the line, the easement prevents the construction because the ranch is the praedium serviens.
Pilar Pena grants Prime Logistics an easement for truck access across her industrial lot. After heavy rains damage the road surface, Prime Logistics must repair the portion it controls. Pena, as owner of the praedium serviens, has no duty to maintain the road unless joint use creates a contribution obligation.
Peter Park sells a meadow to Patricia Patel while retaining an access easement over an adjacent strip. Before the sale the strip was used only for occasional tractor crossings. The prior agricultural use of the praedium serviens informs the scope of Patel's permitted activities after the conveyance.
Perry Pratt owns a strip of land burdened by an easement allowing Preston Pratt to run irrigation pipes. Perry plants low shrubs that do not touch the pipes. Because the planting causes no unreasonable interference, Perry may continue to use the praedium serviens in this manner.
Precision Tools buys a warehouse lot subject to a recorded access easement. After the purchase the buyer begins parking delivery trucks on the easement strip every day. The post-conveyance change in use of the praedium serviens helps determine whether the expanded activity exceeds the original grant.
Pulse Media owns a studio lot benefited by an access easement over a neighboring parcel. After acquiring an adjacent vacant lot, Pulse attempts to use the easement to reach the new lot as well. The servient owner may enjoin that expanded use because the praedium serviens is not required to serve nondominant land.
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 label identifies the parcel whose possessor must tolerate the limited use granted by an easement or servitude. The term signals that the land is burdened rather than benefited.
Supporting sources
The servient owner generally has no affirmative duty to repair or maintain the easement unless the parties have agreed otherwise or joint use creates a contribution obligation. The easement beneficiary bears primary responsibility for upkeep of the portions it controls.
Supporting sources
Yes. The holder of the praedium serviens may make any use of the land that does not unreasonably interfere with the easement beneficiary's rights. Planting, parking, or building is permissible when it leaves the authorized use intact.
Supporting sources
Courts examine both the use made of the praedium serviens before and after the conveyance that created the easement. Those patterns help determine whether later activities fall within the original grant or exceed it.
Supporting sources
…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…