Title: United States v. Blackman

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present: All the Justices 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
 
OPINION BY 
v.  Record No. 042404 
JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. 
 
 
 
June 9, 2005 
PETER F. BLACKMAN 
 
UPON QUESTIONS OF LAW CERTIFIED BY THE UNITED STATES 
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
 
Pursuant to Article VI, Section 1 of the Constitution of 
Virginia and our Rule 5:42, the United States District Court for 
the Western District of Virginia (“district court”), by its 
order entered October 21, 2004, certified to this Court the 
following questions of law: 
A. In Virginia in 1973, would a conveyance of a 
negative easement in gross by a private property owner 
to a private party for the purpose of land 
conservation and historic preservation be valid? 
B. In Virginia in 1973, would it be valid for a group 
of private property owners to grant to a private 
grantee restrictions for the purpose of land 
conservation and historic preservation on their 
individually-owned parcels of property, when (1) the 
property was not being transferred by a common 
grantor, (2) each grant was made in consideration of 
similar grants to the grantee, and (3) the grantee did 
not own any property benefited by the restrictions? 
By order entered January 3, 2005, we accepted the certified 
questions. 
BACKGROUND 
 
The relevant facts are recited in the order of 
certification as follows:   
 
2
The Green Springs Historic District (the 
“District”) is an area of roughly 14,000 acres in 
Louisa County that was settled in the 1700s.  Much of 
the land in this area has historically been used for 
agricultural purposes, and this agricultural setting 
remains today.  Because the land has been continuously 
farmed for almost three centuries, many of the homes 
and farms have been preserved in their original 
context with little alteration. 
In the early 1970s, the Commonwealth of Virginia 
bought two hundred acres of land in the Green Springs 
area with the intention of building a prison.  There 
was much local opposition, and some landowners 
expressed the belief that the prison would damage the 
character of their historic community.  Reacting to 
this opposition, the then-governor of Virginia 
announced in 1972 that the state would not build the 
prison facility in the area if that area could be 
preserved.  In response to the governor’s challenge, 
local citizens organized a non-profit group dubbed 
Historic Green Springs, Inc. (“HGSI”), which obtained 
donations of easements for land conservation and 
historic preservation from landowners and initiated an 
effort to have the area designated as a National 
Historic Landmark District.  The Green Springs 
Historic District was listed on the National Register 
of Historic Places in March of 1973, and was 
ultimately designated as a National Historic Landmark 
in 1974.  See Historic Green Springs, Inc. v. 
Bergland, 497 F.Supp 839, 842-43 (E.D. Va. 1980) 
(discussing the history of the District). 
By a “Deed of Easement” dated March 19, 1973 (the 
“Easement”), D.L. Atkins and Frances Atkins granted to 
HGSI an assignable easement over several parcels of 
their property, including Eastern View Farm.  The 
Easement states in part that “in consideration of the 
grant to the Grantee of similar easements in gross by 
other owners of land in the said Green Springs 
Historic District for similar purposes, the Grantors 
[D.L. Atkins and Frances Atkins] do hereby grant and 
convey to the Grantee [HGSI] an easement in gross 
restricting in perpetuity, in the manner hereinafter 
set forth, the use of the following described tracts 
of land, together with the improvements erected 
thereon.”  In 1978, HGSI decided to convey its entire 
 
3
portfolio of easements to the United States.  In the 
resulting deed of easement to the United States, all 
of the original grantors of similar easements within 
the District acknowledged their agreement to the 
conveyance by affixing their signatures to the deed.  
The National Park Service (“NPS”) now administers 
these easements, including the Easement at issue, on 
behalf of the United States as part of the Green 
Springs National Historic Landmark District.  The 
Easement at issue provides that the manor house on 
Eastern View Farm: 
will be maintained and preserved in its 
present state as nearly as practicable, 
though structural changes, alterations, 
additions, or improvements as would not in 
the opinion of the Grantee fundamentally 
alter its historic character or its setting 
may be made thereto by the owner, provided 
that the prior written approval of the 
Grantee to such change, alteration, 
addition, or improvements shall have been 
obtained.  This provision applies as well to 
those 18th and 19th Century outbuildings 
located on the described property. 
Peter F. Blackman (“Blackman”) purchased Eastern 
View Farm on July 1, 2002.  Blackman wishes to 
renovate and rehabilitate the manor house.  
Specifically, Blackman, inter alia, seeks to remove 
the existing front porch on the manor house, replace 
the siding, and create an addition.  In support of 
these intended alternations, Blackman submitted 
several sets of renovation plans to the NPS for 
review, but the NPS repeatedly denied certain aspects 
of his plans.  Rather than working with the NPS for 
final approval of his plan, Blackman’s attorney stated 
in a latter dated January 13, 2004 that Blackman would 
“commence the Rehabilitation at a time of his 
choosing, without further notice to [NPS], in 
accordance with the attached elevations.”  
Subsequently, Blackman removed the porch from his 
house.  The United States filed the complaint in this 
case June 14, 2004, and on June 16, 2004 Judge James 
C. Turk issued a temporary restraining order 
restraining Blackman from “commencing and/or 
continuing renovation work to the manor house located 
 
4
on the Eastern View Parcel, in the Green Springs 
National Historic Landmark District, unless he has 
first obtained written approval from the National Park 
Service.” 
In defense of his actions, Blackman argues that, 
inter alia, the original deed of easement granted to 
HGSI was invalid because at the time it was 
purportedly created, Virginia law did not recognize 
any kind of negative easement in gross, including such 
easements for the purpose of land conservation and 
historic preservation. 
 
In its order, the district court correctly states that we 
have not directly addressed the issue of the validity of 
negative easements in gross in our prior decisions.  While also 
correctly noting that only certain types of easements were 
recognized at common law, the district court references the 
statement in Tardy v. Creasy, 81 Va. (6 Hans.) 553, 557 (1886), 
that “there are many other easements which have been recognized, 
and some of them have been of a novel kind,” for the proposition 
that prior to 1973 “Tardy leaves open the possibility that other 
easements, including negative easements related to land 
conservation and historic preservation, would be valid if 
sufficiently related to the land.” 
DISCUSSION 
 
The first question certified by the district court presents 
the issue of law whether, in 1973, the law of Virginia permitted 
an individual landowner to grant a negative easement in gross to 
a third party for the purpose of land conservation and historic 
 
5
preservation.  As indicated by the district court, if the law of 
this Commonwealth did not recognize the validity of such an 
easement at that time, then the purported property restrictions 
granted to HGSI are invalid and would be unenforceable by HGSI’s 
transferee, the United States. 
 
Although previously we have not addressed the issue of the 
validity of a negative easement in gross under the law existing 
in 1973, the issue is of considerable significance beyond the 
specific historic district involved in this case.  By the brief 
of amici curiae filed in this case, we are advised that at least 
seven other charitable entities hold conservation or historic 
preservation easements, many of them easements in gross, 
conveyed prior to 1973.∗  Underlying the issue is a degree of 
apparent conflict between the common law preference for 
unrestricted rights of ownership of real property and the public 
policy of this Commonwealth as expressed in Article XI of the 
Constitution of Virginia, ratified by the people of this 
Commonwealth in 1970, that “it shall be the policy of this 
                     
 
∗ The brief was filed on behalf of Historic Green Springs, 
Inc., Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, 
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., Historic Richmond 
Foundation, National Trust for Historic Preservation in the 
United States, The Nature Conservancy, Piedmont Environmental 
Council, and the Waterford Foundation.  These organizations 
assert that thousands of acres and numerous historically 
significant sites and buildings located in this Commonwealth are 
currently protected by easements of the type at issue in this 
case. 
 
6
Commonwealth to conserve . . . its historical sites and 
buildings.”  Accordingly, we take this opportunity to discuss in 
some detail the relevant law. 
 
“An easement is ‘a privilege without profit, which the 
owner of one tenement has a right to enjoy in respect of that 
tenement in or over the tenement of another person; by reason 
whereof the latter is obliged to suffer, or refrain from doing 
something on his own tenement for the advantage of the 
former.’ ”  Amstutz v. Everett Jones Lumber Corp., 268 Va. 551, 
559, 604 S.E.2d 437, 441 (2004) (quoting Stevenson v. Wallace, 
68 Va. (27 Gratt.) 77, 87 (1876); accord Brown v. Haley, 233 Va. 
210, 216, 355 S.E.2d 563, 567-68 (1987).  Easements are 
described as being “affirmative” easements when they convey 
privileges on the part of one person or owner of land (the 
“dominant tract”) to use the land of another (the “servient 
tract”) in a particular manner or for a particular purpose.  
Easements are described as being “negative” when they convey 
rights to demand that the owner of the servient tract refrain 
from certain otherwise permissible uses of his own land.  Bunn 
v. Offutt, 216 Va. 681, 684, 222 S.E.2d 522, 525 (1976). 
 
Negative easements, also known as servitudes, do not bestow 
upon the owner of the dominant tract the right to travel 
physically upon the servient tract, which is the feature common 
to all affirmative easements, but only the legal right to object 
 
7
to a use of the servient tract by its owner inconsistent with 
the terms of the easement.  In this sense, negative easements 
have been described as consisting solely of “a veto power.”  
Prospect Dev. Co. v. Bershader, 258 Va. 75, 89, 515 S.E.2d 291, 
299 (1999). 
 
At common law, an owner of land was not permitted at his 
pleasure to create easements of every novel character and annex 
them to the land so that the land would be burdened with the 
easement when the land was conveyed to subsequent grantees.  
Rather, the landowner was limited to the creation of easements 
permitted by the common law or by statute.  See Tardy, 81 Va. (6 
Hans.) at 557.  The traditional negative easements recognized at 
common law were those created to protect the flow of air, light, 
and artificial streams of water, and to ensure the subjacent and 
lateral support of buildings or land.  See Andrew Dana & Michael 
Ramsey, Conservation Easements and the Common Law, 8 Stan. 
Envtl. L.J. 2, 13 (1989); see also Tardy, 81 Va. (6 Hans.) at 
557, 563. 
 
Easements, whether affirmative or negative, are classified 
as either “appurtenant” or “in gross.”  An easement appurtenant, 
also known as a pure easement, has both a dominant and a 
servient tract and is capable of being transferred or inherited.  
It frequently is said that an easement appurtenant “runs with 
the land,” which is to say that the benefit conveyed by or the 
 
8
duty owed under the easement passes with the ownership of the 
land to which it is appurtenant.  See Greenan v. Solomon, 252 
Va. 50, 54, 472 S.E.2d 54, 57 (1996); Lester Coal Corp. v. 
Lester, 203 Va. 93, 97, 122 S.E.2d 901, 904 (1961).  The four 
negative easements traditionally recognized at common law are, 
by their nature, easements appurtenant, as their intent is to 
benefit an adjoining or nearby parcel of land.  See Federico 
Cheever, Environmental Law: Public Good and Private Magic in the 
Law of Land Trusts and Conservation Easements: A Happy Present 
and a Troubled Future, 73 Denv. U. L. Rev. 1077, 1081 (1996). 
 
In contrast, an easement in gross, sometimes called a 
personal easement, is an easement “which is not appurtenant to 
any estate in land, but in which the servitude is imposed upon 
land with the benefit thereof running to an individual.”  Lester 
Coal Corp., 203 Va. at 97, 122 S.E.2d at 904.  At common law, 
easements in gross were strongly disfavored because they were 
viewed as interfering with the free use of land.  Thus, the 
common law rule of long standing is that an easement is “never 
presumed to be in gross when it [can] fairly be construed to be 
appurtenant to land.”  French v. Williams, 82 Va. 462, 468, 4 
S.E. 591, 594 (1886).  For an easement to be treated as being in 
gross, the deed or other instrument granting the easement must 
plainly manifest that the parties so intended.  Prospect Dev. 
Co., 258 Va. at 90, 515 S.E.2d at 299. 
 
9
 
Because easements in gross were disfavored by the common 
law, they could neither be transferred by the original grantee 
nor pass by inheritance.  Lester Coal Corp., 203 Va. at 97, 122 
S.E.2d at 904.  By statute, however, Virginia long ago abrogated 
common law restrictions on the transfer of interests in land “by 
declaring that any interest in or claim to real estate may be 
disposed of by deed or will.”  Carrington v. Goddin, 54 Va. (13 
Gratt.) 587, 599-600 (1857) (internal quotation marks omitted).  
Pursuant to this statutory change in the common law rule, 
currently embodied in Code § 55-6, we have recognized that an 
affirmative easement in gross is an interest in land that may be 
disposed of by deed or will.  City of Richmond v. Richmond Sand 
& Gravel Co., 123 Va. 1, 9, 96 S.E. 204, 207 (1918).  Following 
this Court’s decision in Lester Coal Corp., which in dictum made 
reference to the common law rule that easements in gross 
remained non-transferable by deed or will, 203 Va. at 97, 122 
S.E.2d at 904, Code § 55-6 was amended “to make clear the 
transferability of easements in gross.”  1962 Va. Acts ch. 169.  
Since 1962, Code § 55-6, in pertinent part, has expressly 
provided that “[a]ny interest in or claim to real estate, 
including easements in gross, may be disposed of by deed or 
will.” (Emphasis added).  We subsequently acknowledged the 
intent of this statutory amendment in Corbett v. Ruben, 223 Va. 
 
10
468, 472 n.2, 290 S.E.2d 847, 849 n.2 (1982) and Hise v. BARC 
Elec. Coop., 254 Va. 341, 344, 492 S.E.2d 154, 157 (1997). 
 
Code § 55-6 unambiguously speaks to “easements in gross” as 
interests in real estate capable of disposition by deed or will.  
There is no suggestion in this language that the statute was 
intended to apply only to affirmative easements in gross and not 
to negative easements in gross.  The significance of this 
statutory change in the common law is manifest.  Easements in 
gross, whether affirmative or negative, are now recognized 
interests in real property, rather than merely personal 
covenants not capable of being disposed of by deed or will as 
was the case under common law.  Moreover, as pertinent to the 
present inquiry, such was the case well before 1973 in this 
Commonwealth. 
 
The 1962 amendment and clarification of Code § 55-6 with 
regard to the transferability of easements in gross has 
facilitated, in part, Virginia’s long recognition of the value 
of conserving and preserving the natural beauty and historic 
sites and buildings in which it richly abounds.  In 1966, the 
General Assembly enacted the Open-Space Land Act, 1966 Va. Acts 
ch. 461.  This Act, currently found in Code §§ 10.1-1700 through 
-1705, is intended to encourage the acquisition by certain 
public bodies of fee simple title or “easements in gross or such 
other interests in real estate” that are designed to maintain 
 
11
the preservation or provision of open-space land.  Code § 10.1-
1703.  By definition, open-space land includes land that is 
preserved for “historic or scenic purposes.”  Code § 10.1-1700.  
Additionally, in 1966, the General Assembly enacted statutes 
creating the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, 1966 Va. Acts. ch. 
525, and the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, 1966 Va. 
Acts ch. 632.  As currently expressed in Code § 10.1-1800, the 
purpose of the Virginia Outdoors Foundation is “to promote the 
preservation of open-space lands.”  The Virginia Historic 
Landmarks Commission, now known as the Virginia Board of 
Historic Resources, was charged with the designation of historic 
landmarks and districts.  1966 Va. Acts ch. 632, § 4(A).  These 
statutes evince a strong public policy in favor of land 
conservation and preservation of historic sites and buildings. 
 
As noted above, this public policy was expressly embodied 
in Article XI of the Constitution of Virginia which, since 1970, 
has provided: 
 
§ 1. To the end that the people have clean air, 
pure water, and the use and enjoyment for recreation 
of adequate public lands, waters, and other natural 
resources, it shall be the policy of the Commonwealth 
to conserve, develop, and utilize its natural 
resources, its public lands, and its historical sites 
and buildings.  Further, it shall be the 
Commonwealth’s policy to protect its atmosphere, 
lands, and waters from pollution, impairment, or 
destruction, for the benefit, enjoyment, and general 
welfare of the people of the Commonwealth. 
 
12
 
§ 2. In the furtherance of such policy, the 
General Assembly may undertake the conservation, 
development, or utilization of lands or natural 
resources of the Commonwealth, the acquisition and 
protection of historical sites and buildings, and the 
protection of its atmosphere, lands, and waters from 
pollution, impairment, or destruction, by agencies of 
the Commonwealth or by the creation of public 
authorities, or by leases or other contracts with 
agencies of the United States, with other states, with 
units of government in the Commonwealth, or with 
private persons or corporations. 
 
In further support of this public policy, the General 
Assembly in 1988 enacted the Virginia Conservation Easement Act 
(“VCEA”), Code §§ 10.1-1009 through -1016.  In pertinent part, 
as defined in the VCEA a conservation easement is “a 
nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property, whether 
easement appurtenant or in gross . . . the purposes of which 
include retaining or protecting natural or open-space values of 
real property . . . or preserving the historical, architectural 
or archaeological aspects of real property.”  Code § 10.1-1009. 
 
Mindful of this background, we now consider the validity of 
the negative easement in gross granted to HGSI by the Atkinses 
in the 1973 deed and subsequently conveyed, with the Atkinses’ 
concurrence, to the United States in 1978.  The validity of that 
easement is dependent upon whether it was a type of negative 
easement that would have been recognized by the law of Virginia 
in 1973.  For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the 1973 
deed created a valid easement. 
 
13
 
Blackman contends that a negative easement in gross for the 
purpose of land conservation and historic preservation was not 
valid in this Commonwealth until 1988 with the enactment of the 
VCEA.  The thrust of this contention is that the VCEA would have 
been unnecessary if such easements were already valid.  We are 
not persuaded by this contention. 
 
Blackman’s contention suggests an analysis devoid of due 
consideration of the pertinent statutory and constitutional 
provisions in effect in the Commonwealth long before the 1988 
enactment of the VCEA.  As discussed supra, Code § 55-6 since at 
least 1962 has recognized easements in gross, whether 
affirmative or negative, as interests in real property capable 
of being transferred by deed or will.  Because easements in 
gross were not transferable at common law and, indeed, were 
strongly disfavored, it is self-evident that this statute 
materially changed the common law and recognized “interest[s] in 
or claim[s] to real estate” beyond those traditionally 
recognized at common law.  Moreover, in the subsequent 1966 
enactment of the Open-Space Land Act, the General Assembly 
specifically recognized easements in gross when it authorized 
acquisition by certain public bodies of easements in gross in 
real property which is preserved for historic purposes.  Such 
easements under that Act, under certain circumstances, would be 
negative easements in gross.  Accordingly, while we continue to 
 
14
be of opinion that “the law will not permit a land-owner to 
create easements of every novel character and attach them to the 
soil,” Tardy, 81 Va. (6 Hans.) at 557, the easement at issue in 
the present case is not of a novel character and is consistent 
with the statutory recognition of negative easements in gross 
for conservation and historic purposes. 
 
More specifically, it does not necessarily follow that 
conservation easements were not valid in this Commonwealth prior 
to the enactment of the VCEA.  There is ample evidence that 
similar interests in land were already recognized by statute 
under the Open-Space Land Act.  Moreover, as referenced by the 
amici curiae in their brief, it is a matter of public record 
that conservation easements or similar interests in land, far 
from being unique to the Historic Green Springs conservation 
effort, have been in common use in Virginia for many years 
before the adoption of the VCEA. 
 
In enacting the VCEA, the General Assembly undertook to 
comprehensively address various land interests that can be used 
for conserving and preserving the natural and historical nature 
of property.  In so doing, the General Assembly addressed the 
use of such easements in a manner consistent with Code § 55-6, 
the Open-Space Land Act, and the public policy favoring land 
conservation and preservation of historic sites and buildings in 
the Commonwealth as expressed in the Constitution of Virginia.  
 
15
The readily apparent purpose of the VCEA was to codify and 
consolidate the law of conservation easements to promote the 
granting of such easements to charitable organizations.  When so 
viewed, it is clear that the VCEA did not create a new right to 
burden land by a negative easement in gross for the purpose of 
land conservation and historic preservation.  Rather, it 
facilitated the continued creation of such easements by 
providing a clear statutory framework under which tax exemptions 
are made available to charitable organizations devoted to those 
purposes and tax benefits and incentives are provided to the 
grantors of such easements. 
 
The fact that such easements were being conveyed without 
these benefits and incentives prior to the enactment of the VCEA 
does not support Blackman’s contention that these easements were 
invalid at that time.  To the contrary, Virginia not only was 
committed to encouraging and supporting land conservation and 
the preservation of historic sites and buildings in the 
Commonwealth, as evidenced by the constitutional and statutory 
expressions of that public policy discussed supra, but also 
recognized negative easements in gross created for these 
purposes as valid in 1973.  Indeed, as noted by the district 
court, the granting of conservation easements by the landowners 
in the Historic Green Springs District was the direct result of 
 
16
the encouragement by the Governor for the express purpose of 
preserving the historic and natural beauty of that unique area. 
 
For these reasons, we hold that the law of Virginia in 1973 
did recognize as valid a negative easement in gross created for 
the purpose of land conservation and historic preservation.  
Accordingly, we answer the first certified question in the 
affirmative. 
 
Because we deem our answer to the first certified question 
to be dispositive, we will not address the second certified 
question. 
First certified question answered in the affirmative.