Source: http://www.deltaalpha.com/html/Real_Estate_Dictionary2.php?id=5
Timestamp: 2020-03-30 06:54:36
Document Index: 245198139

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', '§ 4', '§ 758', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 7', '§ 4', '§ 60', '§ 1', '§ 4']

Real Estate Terms & Meanings | Real Estate Dictionary | Property Language Explained | Mar 29, 2020
At common law, the right must be clear and prescribed; an undefined or vague right (such as a right to view, or a right of privacy) cannot constitute the subject of an easement: "there is no such right known to law as a right to a prospect or view; see Bland v Moseley (1587), cited in Aldred's Case (1610) 9 Co Rep at p. 57b", Phipps v Pears [1965] 1 QB 76, 83, [1964] 2 All ER 35, 37 (CA) (Harris v De Pinna (1886) 33 Ch D 238, 249–50) (although in the US, in some jurisdictions, a right to a view may be recognized as a valid easement where it has been enjoyed as a long, continuous, obvious or manifest use (Rohde v. Beztak of Arizona, Inc., 164 Ariz 383, 793 P.2d 140 (App Ct Ariz 1990)). As a rule, an easement does not impose a positive duty on the owner of the servient tenement, such as to construct or maintain a right of way, but the easement may be granted with express obligations such as an obligation to maintain a right of way, a gate or a fence and in some cases there may be an implied obligation to repair the servient land, especially to prevent possible injury to third parties (Jones v Price [1965] 2 QB 618, 631 (CA); Holden v White [1982] 2 QB 679, 683 (CA); Carter v Cole [2006] EWCA Civ 398 (CA); The American Law Institute, Restatement Third, Property (Servitudes) (St. Paul, MN: 2000), § 4.13). An easement may be classified as 'continuous' or 'discontinuous'. A continuous easement does not require the interference of man for its existence, as with a right of light; whereas a discontinuous easement requires the intervention of man, as by the exercise of a right of way. The former requires the adaptation of the dominant tenement (as by the creation of a window), whereas the latter does not require any permanent adaptation of the dominant tenement.
In the US, many jurisdictions do not consider that the existence of the dominant tenement is an essential element to an easement, and a similar irrevocable right, which does not benefit another parcel of land, is considered to be a valid easement and is called an easement in gross (Jolliff v. Hardin Cable Television Co., 22 Ohio App.2d 49, 258 NE.2d 244, 247 (1970); 3 Tiffany on Real Property (3rd ed. Chicago: 1939), § 758, p. 204). Thus, an easement may be defined as "a right or advantage which one has in the land of another. … a liberty, privilege, or advantage in land without profit, existing distinct from the ownership of the soil. It is a right which one person has to use the land of another for a specific purpose", James v. Drye, 314 SW.2d 417, 420 (Tex Civ App 1958). Similarly, in New Zealand, the requirement of a dominant tenement is not essential (Property Law Act 1952, s. 122; Faloon and Piesse v District Land Registrar [1997] 3 NZLR 498). In Australia, several jurisdictions have laws that recognise easements in gross in favour of a public or local authority and in many cases the courts have accepted an easement need not expressly identify the dominant tenement, provided surrounding circumstances indicate that there is a dominant tenement (e.g. Gas & Fuel Corporation v Barba [1976] VR 755 (Aus Vic)).
As to whether a right of way can be realigned, in English law it has been held that a right cannot be altered, unless there is an express or implied right to permit the realignment (Deacon v South-Eastern Railway Co. (1889) 61 LT 377; Heslop v Bishton [2009] EWHC 607 (Ch)). However, the court has refused to grant an injunction that would have prevented such an alignment when the servient owner had been given notice and had not objected to the proposal, especially as the realignment was considered to be of substantial public importance (Greenwich Healthcare National Health Service Trust v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [1998] 1 WLR 1749, 1754). Also, the existence of an alternative right of way does not necessarily extinguish an established right and, even though an injunction may be refused, compensation may be paid for any loss or inconvenience (Heslop v Bishton, supra). In the US, in the majority of jurisdictions, the rule is that if the right of way is clearly defined, or its route has been definitely determined, unless there is a provision in the agreement that created the right of way, the location cannot be changed without the express or implied agreement of both parties (Sakansky v. Wein, 86 NH 337, 169 A 1 (1933); Consolidated Amusement Co. v. Waikiki Bus. Plaza, Inc., 719 P.2d 1119, 1123 (Haw App 1986); Youngstown Steel Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 38 Cal.2d 407, 240 P.2d 977 (1952); Herren v. Pettengill, 273 Ga 122, 123, 538 SE.2d 735, 736 (2000); Carrollsburg v. Anderson, 791 A.2d 54, 61 (DC 2002); Alligood v LaSaracina, 122 Conn App 479, A.2d _ (2010)). A minority of states accept the view of The American Law Institute, Restatement Third, Property (Servitudes) (St. Paul, MN: 2000), § 4.8(3), which proposes that the burdened landowner should be permitted to relocate the easement at his own expense as long as the new location does not "significantly lessen the utility of the easement"; "increase the burdens on the owner of the easement," or "frustrate the purpose for which the easement was created". This rule "is designed to permit development of the servient estate to the extent it can be accomplished without unduly interfering with the legitimate interests of the easement holder", supra § 4.8, comment (f) (J.W. Bruce & J.W. Ely. The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land (St. Paul, MN: Loose-leaf) § 7.05; M.P.M. Builders, LLC v. Dwyer, 442 Mass. 87, 91, 809 N.E.2d 1053 (2004)—court may still need to consider what would be a "reasonable change in the location"; Lewis v. Young, 92 NY.2d 443, 451–52, 682 NYS.2d 657, 705 NE.2d 649, 652 (1998)—"in the absence of a demonstrated intent to provide otherwise, a landowner burdened by an express easement of ingress and egress may narrow it, cover it over, gate it or fence it off, so long as the easement holder's right of passage is not impaired … so long as the landowner bears the cost of the relocation [endorsing the Restatement Third, Property (Servitudes), § 4.8(3)]"). Also, in some jurisdictions, even though the grant does not specify an alternative location, it may be possible to relocate the easement along another line, as long as the new location is reasonable (Lewis v. Young, 705 NE.2d 649 (NY 1998); MaCammon v Meredith, 830 SW.2d 577, 581 (Tenn App 1991); 7 Thompson on Real Property (2nd ed. Charlottesville, VA: 1994) § 60.0 (c)(1)(ii)).
In the US, 'easement' is more generally used to refer to a right of way (or an analogous rights such as a drainage or utility easement), or a right to light or air. In English law, a broad number of other rights have been classified as 'easements' (A-G of Southern Nigeria v John Holt & Co (Liverpool) Ltd [1915] AC 599, 617 (PC)—a right to store casks and trade products on neighbour's land; Dowty Boulton Paul Ltd v Wolverhampton Corpn (No 2) [1976] Ch 13—right to use an airfield; William Hill (Southern) Ltd v Cabras Ltd [1987] 1 EGLR 37—right to fix a signboard to the wall of an another's house; Gale on Easements (18th ed. London: 2008), §§ 1-64—1-68).
An easement may be distinguished from a profit à prendre as the latter allows someone to take something physically from the land or benefit from the profits of the soil, whereas an easement does not (Alfred F Beckett v Lyons [1967] Ch 449, 482B; McDonald v. Board of Mississippi Levee Comm'rs, 646 F Supp 449, 463 (ND Miss 1986); 25 Am.Jur.2d., Easements and Licenses (Rochester, NY), § 4). Also, a profit à prendre may exist 'in gross', i.e. it need not benefit another parcel of land, whereas at common law (but not in most jurisdictions in the US) an easement cannot exist without a dominant and servient tenement (Boatman v. Lasley, 23 Ohio St 614 (1873); London & Blenheim Estates Ltd v Ladbroke Retail Parkes Ltd [1992] 1 WLR 1278). An easement may be distinguished from a licence as the latter does not create any interest in land, but is merely a privilege that is personal to the parties and may not be assigned and is of limited duration (IDC Group Ltd v Clark [1992] 1 EGLR 187 (CA); Lodestar Tower North Palm Beach, Inc. v. Pal Beach Television Broadcasting, Inc., 665 So.2d 368, 370 (Fla App 1996); Race v. Meyer, 219 AD.2d 67, 640 NYS.2d 664, 667 (1996) Zotos v. Marketspan Corp., 729 NYS.2d 705, 709, 186 Misc.2d 795 (2001), app. den.). An easement, like a profit à prendre is a 'right', whereas a licence is a mere 'privilege'. Unless tied to some other right, a licence may be terminable at will, whereas an easement exists for a determinable period or in 'perpetuity'. On the other hand, a licensee may be granted a right to occupy land, or may be granted a right that is combined with an easement. A license, unlike an easement, may be created orally (although an easement may be created orally if supported by an act of part performance) and a license may be revoked unilaterally and, generally, at the will of the grantor. A license is temporary; need not be capable of forming the subject of a deed of grant; requires no dominant tenement; does not grant exclusive use of land; nor runs with the land; and is always an equitable right.
© Delta Alpha Publishing 2011–2020
© 2020 Delta Alpha Publishing