Also known as: res servientis · servient tenement · servient estate · servient land
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
The land or estate burdened by a servitude. The possessor of the land remains subject to the easement or profit while the beneficiary holds the corresponding right of use.
Apex Industrial Park LLC owns land uphill from a rail spur. Its predecessor recorded an agreement allowing trucks to cross the adjacent factory lot owned by Nexus Manufacturing Corp. Nexus later threatens to block the road. The factory lot is the res serviens because its owner must permit the recorded access right that burdens the parcel.
O owns Blackacre and grants Pipeline Company an easement for a high-pressure gas line. O later grants A an easement for a road across the same land to reach Whiteacre. Blackacre is the res serviens. The beneficiaries must repair and maintain the portions under their control. The servient owner has no general duty to repair.
Rosa Ruiz conveys a parcel to Ruby Rivera while retaining an access easement over the conveyed land to reach her remaining acreage. Before the conveyance the grantor regularly drove farm equipment across the parcel. The conveyed parcel is the res serviens. Its post-conveyance owner must continue to allow the established use shown by the prior pattern.
Renee Rogers owns land subject to an electric transmission easement held by Power Company. She plants trees and builds a shed beneath the lines. The land remains the res serviens. Rogers may continue any use that does not unreasonably interfere with the company's maintenance and operation of the lines.
Robert Rivera sells a parcel to Rebecca Ross but retains an easement for access to his retained farm. After the sale Ross begins using the parcel for a larger commercial operation that increases truck traffic across the easement path. The sold parcel is the res serviens. Its owner must permit only those post-conveyance uses consistent with the original grant's scope.
Will and Jean Brown own parcel B benefited by an easement across the Voss land. They begin using the easement to reach an adjacent parcel C that they also own. The Voss land is the res serviens. Its owners may obtain an injunction preventing use of the easement to benefit the nondominant 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 servient estate is the land subject to the easement or servitude. The dominant estate is the land benefited by the easement. The possessor of the servient estate must allow the permitted use while the possessor of the dominant estate holds the right to that use.
Supporting sources
Yes when the easement is appurtenant and the grant contains no contrary restriction. Each successor to a subdivided part of the dominant estate may use the servient estate in a manner consistent with the original grant. The servient owner cannot block reasonable use by the new owners of the subdivided parcels.
Supporting sources
Yes. The holder of the servient estate may make any use of the land that does not unreasonably interfere with enjoyment of the servitude. The servient owner has no general duty to repair or maintain the easement unless joint use or the terms of the servitude impose that obligation.
Supporting sources
Courts examine the language of the grant, the circumstances of the conveyance, the use made of the servient estate before and after the conveyance, and whether the use is reasonably necessary for the dominant estate. Changes in intensity are allowed if they do not unreasonably damage the servient estate or exceed the original purpose.
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…