Also known as: privity of estate
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
Former common ownership of what are now separate parcels of land. This unity is required to establish an easement by necessity between the parcels.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Blackacre and Whiteacre were once held by the same owner. After severance, the owner of Whiteacre claimed an easement by necessity across Blackacre. The prior common ownership satisfied the unity requirement, allowing the easement to arise.
Two parcels shared a single title until the common owner conveyed one to a buyer. The buyer later needed access across the retained parcel. Former common ownership supplied the required unity, creating an easement by necessity.
Adjacent lots originated from one tract under common ownership. After division, the landlocked parcel sought an easement. The historical unity of title met the prerequisite for an easement by necessity.
Kunto's predecessors occupied land adjacent to but not matching their deed descriptions. Successive occupants maintained continuous use across the parcels. The prior common ownership relationship allowed tacking of the periods to satisfy the statutory requirement.
The parcels must have been held in common ownership before separation. Without that prior unity, necessity alone does not create the easement.
Supporting sources
No. Only when the transfer creates the required relationship and the covenant touches and concerns the land do burdens run. Former common ownership is not the test in lease cases.
Supporting sources
The original tenant stays liable on express covenants that rest on privity of contract unless the landlord affirmatively releases the tenant. Common ownership of separate parcels is irrelevant.
Supporting sources
…301 P.2d 153 (1956). The deed running between the parties purporting to transfer the land possessed traditionally furnishes the privity of estate which connects the possession of the successive occupants. Plaintiff contends, and the trial court ruled, that where the deed does not describe any of the land which was occupied, the…