Opinion ID: 1134182
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the claimant is the conveyor or the conveyee.

Text: This distinction is made because the conveyor to a greater extent than the conveyee usually controls the language and circumstances of the conveyance, and circumstances which may be sufficient to imply the creation of an easement in favor of a conveyee may not be sufficient to imply the creation of one in favor of the conveyor. 5 Restatement, Property § 476, Comment (c). Though in Rose et ux. v. Denn, 188 Or. 1, 19, 212 P.2d 1077, 213 P.2d 810 (1950), which plaintiffs claim supports their case, this court did recognize that an easement may be created by implication in favor of the grantor as well as the grantee, the facts of that case are distinguishable from those at hand in several respects. In Rose the court decided that an easement by implication had been created when the father gave to the son land on which was a road the father still used to get to his land. Besides necessity the court emphasized the reciprocal value of the road in that the father used it in crossing the son's land and the son used it in crossing the father's land; both were required to cross each other's property. 188 Or. at 25, 35, 212 P.2d 1077, 213 P.2d 810. Other factors, including a lack of consideration, also suggested an implied easement.