Court Opinion

ID: 9552593
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:13:37.99381+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:28:18.230578
License: Public Domain

*778Williams, J.
(concurring)—I concur in the result. The "Brown Road" easement first appears in the record on March 29, 1955, when the real estate contract selling the servient estate to the Castanzas' predecessor was recorded, the easement being described as an:
easement of right of way for road purposes to property in same section lying south of the property sold.
It next appears on April 13, 1955, when the real estate contract selling the dominant estate to Wagner's predecessor was recorded, the easement being described as the:
[rfight to use an existing bulldozed road over and across the following described property: Northwest quarter of northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 26 north, Range 7, East W.M., extending from creek to county road, which right of way shall be sixty feet in width and whose use will be for access road and utility purposes.
This latter description was erroneous because the owner, in selling the parcel to the Castanzas' predecessor, reserved from that sale only the "Brown Road,” which was no more than 16 feet in width at any point. Being divested of ownership of the servient estate, the seller could not broaden the easement to 60 feet.
Although the Castanzas are not requesting that the utility lines already installed under Brown Road be removed, they do seek an order prohibiting the installation of additional utility lines. The grant of a right of way for "road purposes" does not authorize the owner of the dominant estate to install utility lines under the road. See Gordon v. Hoy, 211 Va. 539, 178 S.E.2d 495, 496-97 (1971); Ampa-goomian v. Atamian, 323 Mass. 319, 81 N.E.2d 843, 845 (1948); United States Pipe Line Co. v. Delaware, L. & W. R.R., 62 N.J.L. 254, 41 A. 759, 768 (1898). Nor does the Castanzas' acquiescence of the utilities in place justify amending the easement to permit additional utilities. An easement by express grant may not be expanded in scope beyond the terms of the grant, even though the expansion would not increase the burden on the servient estate. *779Brown v. Voss, 105 Wn.2d 366, 371-72, 715 P.2d 514 (1986).
Reconsideration denied June 23 and July 15, 1986.
Review denied by Supreme Court October 7, 1986.