Opinion ID: 1215922
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Were the O'Bucks Entitled to an Easement for Installation and Maintenance of Their Antenna?

Text: The O'Bucks claim that they have an easement which entitles them to install a television antenna on the roof. They offer three alternative theories by which they have obtained an easement: express, statutory grant under AS 34.07.170; easement by implication; and easement by estoppel. After considering the arguments in support of each of the theories, we conclude that the O'Bucks are not entitled to an easement to install an antenna.
The O'Bucks argue that they are entitled to their own installed antenna under AS 34.07.170, which provides: Each apartment owner has a nonexclusive easement for, and may use the common areas and facilities in accordance with the purpose for which they were intended without hindering or encroaching upon the lawful right of the other apartment owners. The roof of each condominium building is specifically designated a common area in article V, section 2 of the Declaration. The O'Bucks claim that because the antenna was a use for which [the roof was] intended and because it does not hinder ... or encroach upon the lawful right of the other apartment owners, they have an easement to install the antenna on the roof. We disagree. The superior court found, based on the testimony of several witnesses that the presence of television antennae on the roofs caused damage and leaks. The damage to the roofs led to the assessment of nearly $1,200 repair costs to each owner. Because the court below could reasonably have considered this cost to be an encroachment upon or hinderance of each unit owner's lawful right to have a good roof as a common area, we affirm its ruling that the O'Bucks do not have an express easement to install a television antenna under AS 34.07.170. [7]
The O'Bucks rely on Freightways Terminal Co. v. Industrial and Commercial Construction, Inc., 381 P.2d 977 (Alaska 1963) in support of their claim for an easement by implication. They claim that they have met the requirements articulated in Freightways: that an implied easement would give effect to the actual intent of the parties as shown by all the facts and circumstances, id. at 983, and that an implied easement is reasonably necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of the property as it existed when the severance was made. Id. at 984. We are not persuaded that those requirements have been satisfied. When the O'Bucks purchased their condominium unit, they received a deed that incorporated the Declaration by which the Association was empowered to regulate common areas in Cottonwood Village. Given this deed with its reservation of regulatory power to the Association, the O'Bucks' claim that an easement by implication would give effect to the actual intent of the parties to the conveyance rests on a questionable foundation. The O'Bucks' claim that an implied easement is reasonably necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of the property as it existed when the severance was made is similarly untenable. While it is conceded that at the time the O'Bucks purchased their unit adequate television reception required an antenna, it is not clear that a need for adequate television can ever rise to the level of necessity. [8] Case law and commentary indicate that the degree of necessity required for an easement by implication exceeds that shown by the O'Bucks. In Freightways the plaintiff owned a landlocked parcel, and had no means of ingress or egress except via an easement over adjoining parcels. Similarly, the Restatement of Property, § 476 comment g (1944) notes that [i]f no use can be made of land conveyed ... without the benefit of an easement, it is assumed that the parties intended the easement to be created.... It is assumed that the parties could not have intended that the land ... be useless... . (Emphasis supplied.) In such situations it seems clear that the owner of the landlocked parcel required an implied easement in order to preserve any value in the property. But see Porter v. Griffith, 25 Ariz. App. 300, 543 P.2d 138 (1975) (easement to owners of landlocked parcel denied). Because these cases reveal a level of necessity far beyond that shown by the O'Bucks, we affirm the superior court's holding that there is no easement by implication in the circumstances of this case.
The O'Bucks' third argument is that they gained an easement by estoppel. Again, they rely on Freightways to support their position: In case there is an attempted oral grant of an easement and the intended grantee makes improvements for the purpose of exercising the easement, equity will recognize and enforce the easement on the theory of what is ordinarily referred to as that of part performance but which is essentially the theory of estoppel. 381 P.2d at 984. The O'Bucks characterize the assurances they received from the developer before they purchased their unit as an attempted oral grant, and argue that they relied upon that attempted oral grant in purchasing their unit and in purchasing and installing their antenna. They also argue that an interest in property ... cannot be affected by a contrary house rule of the Association. While the O'Bucks would not have purchased their unit without the developer's assurance that they could install an antenna, their intent in installing the antenna obviously was to improve their television reception. With the removal of their antenna, their reception suffered, but the Association offered the option of participating in a cable service which would provide reception at least as good as that provided by the antenna. The additional cost of the cable system presents an inconvenience for the O'Bucks, who had invested in a top-of-the-line antenna [9] to insure free, high quality reception. Nonetheless, cable preserves their ability to obtain television reception in their unit. Such provision of an alternative undermines the O'Bucks' argument for an easement. See Restatement of Property, § 476 comment g, at 2984. [10] The O'Bucks also contend that because their alleged easement is an interest in property, and interests in property ... cannot be affected by a contrary house rule of the Association, they are entitled to install their antenna. The O'Bucks' assertion overstates the sanctity of interests in property. Indeed, in their trial brief below, the O'Bucks contended only that interests in property may be reasonably regulated but not nullified. Because we have held that the Board acted reasonably and was within its power to regulate common areas, see Part B, supra, the O'Bucks' interest in property could be affected. Further, the O'Bucks were compensated for the antenna which was removed. See supra note 9. Thus no property interest of the O'Bucks was nullified. We therefore affirm the superior court's decision that the O'Bucks do not possess an easement by estoppel. Because the O'Bucks have not shown that they are entitled to an easement for their television antenna under any of the three theories they have advanced, we affirm the holding of the superior court that the O'Bucks do not possess an easement for the installation and maintenance of their antenna.