Also known as: servient estates · servient tenement · servient tenements
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A parcel of land subject to an easement that benefits another parcel. The possessor of the servient estate must allow the easement holder to exercise the rights granted by the easement. The servient estate remains usable by its owner provided that use does not unreasonably interfere with the easement.
Sasha Stone owns a parcel that Scott Summers crosses daily to reach his own adjoining lot. Summers obtained an express right-of-way across Stone's parcel. Stone's parcel is the servient estate because its possessor must permit Summers to traverse the land.
Sentinel Security holds an easement for a pipeline across land owned by Skyline Construction. The pipeline requires periodic repairs that affect the surface. Skyline Construction bears no duty to repair the pipeline itself because the beneficiary of the easement controls the improvement.
Stephen Shaw conveyed a strip of his land to Samuel Soto while retaining an access route that Shaw had used for farm equipment. After the conveyance Soto begins parking vehicles on the route. The prior agricultural use on the servient estate before the conveyance limits the easement to equipment passage rather than parking.
Solstice Ventures owns land crossed by an access easement held by Sterling Manufacturing. Solstice Ventures plants crops on portions of the easement path that do not block passage. The servient owner may continue agricultural use because the activity does not unreasonably interfere with the easement.
Sean Steele grants an easement across his parcel to Skylar Sullivan for access to Sullivan's lot. After the grant Steele installs a gate that Sullivan regularly opens without objection. The consistent post-conveyance use of the servient estate supports an interpretation that the easement permits gated access.
Samuel Soto sells a lot subject to a recorded restriction that limits building height to preserve views from an adjoining parcel retained by Sasha Stone. Stone later sells the adjoining parcel to Scott Summers. The restriction burdens Soto's former lot as the servient estate for the benefit of the retained dominant parcel.
On September 5, 1906, title to a tract of land at Brier Neck in Gloucester was registered in the name of Luce, from whom it soon passed to Shackelford. The tract was bounded northerly by a line through a pond near Thatcher Road, easterly by other land, southerly by the Atlantic Ocean, and westerly by Witham Road. The northerly part including what became lot D was low and marshy, while the southern part rose to a hill and slope suitable for summer residences. In 1907, the land south of Thatcher Road was divided into about a hundred building lots. Between July 8, 1907, and January 23, 1923, almost all these lots were sold by Shackelford with uniform restrictions limiting each to one dwelling house costing at least $2500 and prohibiting outbuildings with privies without consent. On June 15, 1923, the remaining unsold land south of Thatcher Road was conveyed to J. Richard Clark subject to similar restrictions. A revised plan in 1919 divided the northerly marshy land into parcels C, D, and E. On January 23, 1923, Shackelford conveyed these parcels to Robert C. Clark subject to restrictions allowing only one dwelling house per parcel costing at least $2500 unless otherwise approved. On February 18, 1933, Robert C. Clark conveyed the larger part of lot D to defendant Van Dam subject to the restrictions insofar as they remained in force. The defendants erected a large building on lot D for selling ice cream and dairy products and operating as a common victualler. The plaintiffs, each owning a lot south of Thatcher Road with a summer residence, brought suit in Middlesex County seeking an injunction against the defendants for violating the restrictions.
View caseA servient estate is the parcel burdened by an easement while the dominant estate is the parcel benefited by the same easement. The possessor of the servient estate must allow the easement use. The possessor of the dominant estate receives the benefit of that use.
Supporting sources
The owner of the servient estate may use the land in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the easement. Reasonable uses such as planting crops or installing non-obstructive improvements remain permissible. Interference that prevents the easement holder from exercising the granted rights is not allowed.
Supporting sources
The beneficiary of the easement has the duty to repair and maintain the portions of the servient estate under the beneficiary's control. The servient estate owner has no affirmative duty to repair unless the parties jointly use the improvement. Joint users must contribute proportionally to reasonable repair costs.
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…