Opinion ID: 2513925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Easements Versus Profits À Prendre

Text: I begin with the proposition that I view the distinction between profits à prendre and easements as material. Although in preparing the Restatement of Property, the American Law Institute (ALI) initially referred to both easements and profits as easements, in 1998 the ALI reversed its position, once again finding the distinction between easements and profits significant. See 4 Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property 34.01 [2] (2002). As the majority noted, the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 1.2(2) (2000) [hereinafter Restatement] defines a profit à prendre as an easement that confers the right to enter and remove timber, minerals, oil, gas, game, or other substances from land in the possession of another. It is referred to as a `profit' in this Restatement. The Restatement distinguishes between easements and profits stating [p]rofits à prendre are like affirmative easements in that they create rights to enter and use land in possession of another. However, they also create the right to remove something from the land. Restatement, supra, § 1.2(2) cmt. (a). It further clarifies,  Profits are easements plus. Profits are easements (rights to enter and use land in the possession of another) plus the right to remove something from the land. Restatement, supra, § 1.2(2) cmt. (e) (emphasis in original). Thus, the Restatement acknowledges that profits à prendre provide a greater property interest to the profit holder and, conversely stated, a greater detriment to the servient estate. See 8 David A. Thompson, Thompson on Real Property § 65.03(a) (1994) (noting, Despite the fact that profits are now considered by most writers to be governed by the same set of rules as easements, ... [i]t is also clear that functionally the two areas deal with distinctly different kinds of transactions. Thompson also observes that, in the Restatement (Third) of Property introduction (Tentative Draft No. 1, 1989), the ALI highlighted that [t]he term profit has been resurrected from the oblivion into which it was consigned by the 1944 Restatement because it describes a device that is used for a purpose quite different from the other servitude devices, and occasionally calls for somewhat different considerations, if not different rules.). Similarly, we have held that profits à prendre involve a greater interest than easements and must therefore be expressly granted. Alexander Dawson, Inc. v. Fling, 155 Colo. 599, 603-04, 396 P.2d 599, 601 (1964) (holding that a profit à prendre must be expressly granted and cannot be implied from an easement). Hence, under Colorado law, because profits à prendre are more onerous to the burdened estate than an easement, [7] the importation of laws governing easements is inappropriate.