Opinion ID: 901405
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Right to determine who may travel upon the easement:

Text: [¶ 25.] Our law is clear that the owner of the servient tenement retains all the incidents of ownership in the easement. Knight, 2001 SD 120, ¶7, 634 NW2d at 543 (citations omitted). The grant of an easement does not dispossess the landowner. Lazy Dog Ranch v. Telluray Ranch, Corp., 965 P2d 1229, 1234 (CO 1998) (citations omitted). However, the owner of the servient tenement may not interfere with the dominant tenement owner's rights as defined by the easement document. Picardi I, ¶21 (citing Knight, 2001 SD 120, ¶7, 634 NW2d at 543) (citations omitted)). [¶ 26.] The holder of the dominant tenement may not enlarge the use of the easement beyond the terms of the grant. Knight, 2001 SD 120, ¶6, 634 NW2d at 542. See Block v. Drake, 2004 SD 72, ¶26, 681 NW2d 460, 467 (holding unless granted away by easement, the owner of real estate retains the right to determine the extent of vehicular traffic he or she will allow on his or her property). See also Stevens v. Anderson, 393 A2d 158, 159 (ME 1978) (holding phrase for cattle, teams and foot passengers in express grant did not include passage for automobiles); Krause v. Taylor, 343 A2d 767, 770 (NJSuperCtAppDiv 1975) (holding grant limited to right of way easement could not be extended to include right of use for utility purposes); Richardson v. Horn, 137 SW2d 394, 398 (KyCtApp1940) (holding right of way easement did not include right to drain water across easement); Dana v. Smith, 103 A 157, 158 (ME 1918) (holding grant of right of way to pass by foot did not include right to a cartway or passage by automobile). [T]he scope of a roadway easement `for ingress and egress to a tract on which a home is to be built means more than a surface roadway'it also includes ingress and egress for other necessities. Arcidi v. Town of Rye, 846 A2d 535, 543 (NH 2004) (quoting Bivens v. Mobley, 724 So2d 458, 464-65 (MissCtApp 1998)). However, if the dominant tenement owner engages in a use of the easement outside its express purpose, it becomes an unauthorized presence upon the land. Marcus Cable Associates, L.P. v. Krohn, 90 SW3d 697, 703 (TX 2002) (citation omitted). This is so even if the unauthorized use does not materially increase the burden upon the servient tenement. Id. [¶ 27.] It would have been an option for the contracting parties to specifically list those who are granted access over the easement. Such a listing is contained elsewhere in the lease in reference to a different subject-matter: Pacardi, their heirs successors and assigns. ( Compare Knight, 2001 SD 120, ¶6, 634 NW2d at 542 Madison' [his] agents, employees and invitees.). Under such language, those who are granted access are specifically listed to the exclusion of others. Herein, however, the parties chose to define the right of access by the nature of the easement, that being for the construction and occupation of a single residence by Pacardis and reasonable access thereto, and solely for that purpose. [¶ 28.] The terms of the grant limit the ability of the owner of an express right of way easement to invite third parties to use the easement. Jackson v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 94 CalApp4th 1110, 1118 (CalCtApp 2001). Use of the easement by the dominant tenement owner's guests and invitees is permissible as long as the use is compatible with the rights granted under the easement and reasonably related to the enjoyment of the easement. Arcidi, 846 A2d at 541 (citing Gowen v. Cote, 875 SW2d 637, 641 (MoCtApp 1994) (citations omitted)). See also Picardi I, 2004 SD 125, ¶23 n4, 689 NW2d at 892 (citing Block 2004 SD 72, 681 NW2d at 467); Jackson, 94 CalApp4th at 1118. [¶ 29.] Picardis are the holders of the right of ingress and egress to their single family residence. As such, they, their family, and social invitees are clearly allowed to travel upon the roadway under the easement. The scope of the Picardi easement for ingress and egress to their single family home also includes travel to and from the dominant tenement by such invitees as utility company service vehicles, contractors to build and repair the home, and other types of services that are necessities required to support the home. [5] [¶ 30.] Picardis, as the easement holder, do not have the right to expand the use of the easement beyond that which is necessary to support the maintenance and operation of their single family home. It is beyond the intent of the parties, as contained within the four corners of the document, to permit Picardis to expand the use of the roadway to include access for a purely commercial venture, such as commercial logging, or other commercial traffic that is unrelated to activities necessary to support the single family home. [6]