Opinion ID: 1284075
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: private easement by estoppel

Text: The Swifts and Dahls claim the right to a private roadway easement for the Fairhill Subdivision residents on the basis of estoppel. [5] Estoppel has been accepted in Alaska as a theory for the establishment of a private easement. Hawkins v. Alaska Freight Lines, 410 P.2d 992, 993 (Alaska 1966); Freightways Terminal v. Industrial and Commercial Construction, 381 P.2d 977, 983 (Alaska 1963). We have made it clear, however, that a party may not rely upon the theory of creation of an easement by oral grant and estoppel, when there is no evidence to support a finding that an oral grant was made. Hawkins, 410 P.2d at 993 (footnote omitted). See Freightways Terminal, 381 P.2d at 984; 3 H. Tiffany & B. Jones, Real Property § 801, at 317-18 (3d ed. 1939). In the instant case, there are no allegations that Fairhill made an oral grant of easement to use the disputed roadway. Furthermore, the record does not support the contention that the subdivision residents relied on their belief that the roadway was public. Caleb Pomeroy is the only witness who testified that he would not have bought his lot in the subdivision had he known that the roadway was not public. Other witnesses, including appellants, proclaimed only failed expectations, but not reliance. [6] We hold that the superior court properly rejected the creation of a private easement for the subdivision residents by estoppel, due to the lack of both an oral grant and detrimental reliance.