Also known as: privity of estate
Written by attorneys — see sources 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.
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.
Land surveying errors led to a mismatch between deed descriptions and actual occupations on the shore of Hood Canal in Mason County. As long ago as 1932, McCall resided in the house now occupied by the Kuntos under a deed describing a 50-foot-wide parcel that was adjacent to the lot where the house stood. Several property owners to the west of defendants were similarly situated. Since 1946, several conveyances occurred using the same legal description accompanied by transfer of possession to succeeding occupants. The Kuntos' immediate predecessors, the Millers, had a survey performed to build a dock which indicated conformity between deed and occupation, leading to placement of boundary stakes and construction of improvements. The Kuntos took possession of the disputed property under a deed from the Millers in 1959. In 1960, the Howards, who held land east of the Kuntos, undertook a survey to convey an undivided one-half interest to the Yearlys. The survey revealed that the Howards were record owners of land occupied by the Moyers and the Moyers held record title to land occupied by the Kuntos. In April 1960, Howard obtained a conveyance from Moyer of the land upon which the Kunto house stood in exchange for conveying the land upon which the Moyer house stood. Until that conveyance, neither Moyer nor predecessors asserted any right to the property possessed by Kunto and predecessors. Plaintiffs instituted this action to quiet title on August 19, 1960, when defendants had been in occupancy of the disputed property less than a year. The trial court denied the Kuntos' claim of adverse possession, finding a lack of continuity of possession or estate to permit tacking and that defendants' possession was not continuous because it involved only summer occupancy. Defendants appealed from the decree quieting title in the plaintiffs.
View caseThe 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
…premises in question within ten years before the commencement of the action.” : The English common law does not require privity as a prerequisite for tacking. See F. Clark, Law of Surveying and Boundaries, § 561 (3d ed. 1959) at 568. : Defendants’ deed and chain of title had an alternate description…