Talk:Easement

message: There are many aspects of this article which not only do not apply to jurisdictions such as the UK; for example the very concept of an easement being attached to a single piece of land (as opposed to two; the dominant and servient tenements), the diametric opposites of adverse possession and prescription, the nature of negative easements etc. I have no idea whether these concepts are correct in US law, but they are certainly poorly stated here. I suggest tagging this article for clarification. 129.67.126.125 07:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was wondering exactly the same myself. Wonder if it may not be better to flag it on the systemic bias pages?  — KayEss | talk 14:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've had a go at trying to qualify some of what is said, but there are vast tracts which are unsources descriptions of rules about easements. Can we please try to go from the particular to the general in these law pages. At the moment, US lawyers write a lot of stuff about the US as if it was generally true and imply historicity to novel innovations in the US. Its then impossible for me to sort out what is and is not meant to be about the US alone. I know how things work in my jurisdiction and am trying to learn about others, but its hard work. Francis Davey 09:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm going to go ahead and add info. on floating easements. Bearian 19:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for an extensive clarification

message: Worse -- the article implies that an easement may be gained by a process somewhat akin to adverse possession, but surely this is exactly wrong? An easement by prescription is based on a presumption of consent, not adverse occupation. This is an important distinction I have relied on in some cases I have dealt with. Certainly this is the basis of lost modern grant and long user categories of prescription. Is this not true throughout the common law world? Francis Davey 19:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't a right-of-way based on historical usage essentially an easement gained by adverse possetion? Toiyabe 18:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Short answer: no. Long answer: prescription is a legal fiction. It assumes that, because someone has been using something a long time they must have either (1) been granted it back before time immemorial; or (2) been granted it a while back, but we've "lost" the grant recently. Adverse possession requires adversity. Not the same doctrine. Maybe in the US the two have merged, it wouldn't be all that surprising. Francis Davey 21:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure I see the difference, but IANAL.  I always thought that adverse possetion also hinged on implied consent.  That's why it must be "open and notorious" - the owner can't pretend he dosen't know what's going on, so therefore by doing nothing about it for a long period of time he is agreeing that the property belongs to the squatter.  A right-of-way through your property that you were not compensated for also seems to be adverse - if nothing else it almost certainly decreases the value of the property.  Toiyabe 22:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Francis Davey is correct.  According to the 6th edition of Black's Law Dictionary, an easement by prescription requires "immemorial or long-continued enjoyment".  However, it also adds that "the uninterrupted use of the land must generally be for the same statutory period of time as for adverse possession".  The possession of an easement by prescription is usually not adverse.  However, Barron's Dictionary of Real Estate Terms (6th Ed.) adds that, once easement by prescription has been acquired, the use of the land may continue despite the protests of the land's titleholder. Davemcarlson 01:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: In England and Wales the two time periods are (now) different. Generally 20 years for easements, 12 (or 10) for adverse possession. Only one of the 3 (or 4) ways of acquiring an easement by prescription is statutory, the others are common law. There are complexities and profits are different. Francis Davey (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

text: I would say you are right except for the "hostile" part.  A prescriptive easement must be hostile.  The only element that lacks is "exclusiveness."  Regardless, adverse possession should not even be discussed in the easement section because they are completely different and I am going to remove it altogether. TheThinWhiteDuke 20:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: To try to clarify a bit: if I occupy land and obtain by adverse possession, the status of the landowner is immaterial. However, the doctrine of "lost modern grant", requires that the owner of the servient tenemant has the power to grant, that would be impossible if they were (for example) a minor or patient. The doctrine of "long user" can be rebutted by showing that the easement cannot, as a matter of fact, have existed since time immemorial. Francis Davey 17:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prescription 

message: What about the "easements" sometimes advertised on UK railways when some service problem means that bus companies will accept train tickets? An example of that from National Rail (repeated here as it's only temporary) is this:
Easements: Travel West Midlands will accept Central Trains tickets on all reasonable bus routes
Is this the same as the term "railroad easement" mentioned but undefined in this article? Loganberry (Talk) 10:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Railways? 

message: Why does a search for a wayleave re-direct to the easement page?  A wayleave is a different animal to an easement and there are clear distinctions between the two.  A re-direct from one to the other is misleading, particularly as they are similar in nature.  It would seem more appropriate to draw attention to the distinction between the two!
:Sounds like the wayleave is equivalent or the same as a license in the U.S.
Isn't it weird that Wayleave redirects to this article, but the article text doesn't mention wayleaves at all? --78.151.182.47 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed that: Easement#Wayleave. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious redirect 

message: I've deleted the ridiculous pejorative "NB" at the top.  I've also removed the equally ridiculous dispute tag.  No one has pointed out any factual errors, only that some statements don't apply universally, which the article so states, to wit: "Easement concepts differ substantially from country to country, and in the U.S. from state to state."  
Prescriptive easement and adverse possession are not "diametric opposites."  Though related, in that both involve the loss of ownership rights due to owner's failure to exercise same, the article states in numerous places that the two are different.
Instead of being lazy and sticking a tag up, why don't one of you self-styled experts make an effort to improve the article by helping to distinguish between the article's concepts and your own? J M Rice 20:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its impossible to do because I only know my own law, not anyone else's. I can't say "In X this is true but in Y this is true", because I don't know what is true in X. I can't rely on the article because it doesn't tell me where it is located. I'm guessing US, but it doesn't say most of the time. I could just delete what's there, write an article based on English law which I know would be completely correct, flag where it is true, and then let other people edit it to say what is true elsewhere, but I'm guessing that would annoy 8-). Francis Davey (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prescription and Adverse Possession 

message: I afraid this article might have some advertising put here by Towermeister a long time ago. It may take some effort to clean up.
(QUINTIX (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Product advertising by [[user:Towermeister| Towermeister ]] 

message: This article says:
: 
:: If the landowner posts the land (i.e., "No Trespassing") or prevents the public from using the easement,
: 
Would it not be accurate to say that this way of using the verb "post" is regional dialect, used in the northeastern United States and not elsewhere?  To "post" in standard English is to put up signs; one is posting the signs on the land, not "posting the land".  Only in the northeastern USA is one "posting the land". Michael Hardy (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Posting" land 

message: How are there so few citations on this page?  Massive chunks of information are uncited. At least, it's unclear how existing citations may or may not account for these unattributed swaths of text. Btaylor0000 (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. I just reviewed the guidelines on citation/references and no longer feel strongly about this.  Although, a general lack of citation tends to worry me about attribution issues. Btaylor0000 (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Easement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318213516/http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/easement/easementsacquiredbyuseofproperty.pdf to http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/forestry/easement/easementsacquiredbyuseofproperty.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If Lot A holds an easement thru Lot B for a driveway, what prevents Lot B from
also using that driveway, in ways that don't conflict with Lot A's use?  For
example, to drive thru their own property, along the easement, to access a newly required parking space (required by the city) located on their own property.
I am trying to understand a New Mexico land case in which this was an issue, and the
court didn't seem to even consider that Lot B would be allowed to use their own
property (underlying the easement) to reach the back part of their own lot.  See
paragraphs 14 thru 22 of 2017-NMCA-025 (November 29, 2016), Docket No. 34,465, New Mexico (USA) Court of Appeals, TAFOYA v. MORRISON:
  http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/NMCA/2017/17ca-025.pdf
I'm not asking that this case's ruling be explained, but that the Easement article should (if it's true) state that the existence of an easement doesn't destroy the servient property owner's own rights to use their own property, as long as their use doesn't conflict with the easement.  Ideally with a citation...  Gnuish (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  To what extent does an easement extinguish servient property rights?