Speed Limits and Gates on a Right of Way

[sdlsrh254]

My question involves an easement in the state of:New York. I have had the right of way to access my property in the deed for over 8 years. It was originally in the deed when my sister sold the property to my parents. The previous owners we never had any issues with the use of the driveway. The new owner has issues with every little thing that goes on. He is complaining about how fast we go down the driveway past his house. He posted a sign stating 5 MPH. He has even told us that he is going to put a locked gate at the end of the driveway and give us a key. What are his rights in this situation in regards to the gate and our "speeding"? This driveway is our only access to our home.

[Mr. Knowitall]

He may be able to gate the easement. What is the exact granting language?

If he wants to post a speed limit sign on his own land, it's his land. He's not a police agency or a state road commission, so it's principal purpose would apparently be to make him feel better.

If the sign is posted in a dangerous location or interferes with your use of the right-of-way, you can ask him to move or remove it.

[sdlsrh254]

What can I do if the neighbor has decided to block a portion of the right of way with his plow that is attached this truck? He is doing this every time he says we are speeding up or down the driveway. The driveway that we use is a12 foot right of way. The deed states by the conveyance of title in this 12 foot wide right of way, the grantees shall have the right to install public service equipment along its entire length and may pave with concrete or asphalt all or such portions of it as they dee,m necessary. Together with the appurtenances and all the estate and the rights of the grant or and to the premises.
This driveway that we both use was never there until my father installed it. What rights to I have to tell him to move his truck that he is clearly infringing on the 12 foot right of way? Can I stop him also from using the driveway all together?

[jk]

unless the grant gives you exclusive use of the easement, you cannot stop him from using his own property. If the truck actually impedes your use of the easement, you can seek an injunction from the courts ordering him to not impede your use of the lane.

btw: if he places a locked gate and gives you the key, unless there is something in the grant demanding you abide by his demands to lock, or even close the gate, there is no obligation you lock or even close the gate. The one exception I can think of would be if he maintains animals that are contained by the use of the gate. He still couldn't make you lock the gate but if he lost animanls because you did not close the gate, you might be able to be held liable for the loss of the animal.

[LandSurveyor]

Normally any blockage of a valid right of way for ingress-egress would be a valid claim for injunctive relief.

But you might want to review this case before trying that approach:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3ds...2008_09559.htm

Strange but true.

[jk]

Normally any blockage of a valid right of way for ingress-egress would be a valid claim for injunctive relief.

But you might want to review this case before trying that approach:

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3ds...2008_09559.htm

Strange but true.

not seeing a problem with that decision LS. The ultimate reason for an easement would be to be able to access some other property. Since speed bumps do not restrict that access (unless they are so large they make it unusable for the dominant tenant or invitees) nor would a gate, I do not see why a court would demand the servient tenant alter their alterations. Of course, a locked gate would but as I stated, unless there is some requirement to lock the gate or even close it, all the OP has to do is leave it open. If the servient tenant locks the gate, then I believe they would have reason to seek relief from a court.

while we have the OP's position, we do not have the servient tenant input. While not accusing the OP of being deceptive in seeking advice, I can see where a dominant tenant may drive recklessly and cause damage to the easement as well as being a danger, or at least a nuisance, to others. In such situations, I would not see the servient tenants actions as oppressive.

[LandSurveyor]

not seeing a problem with that decision LS

It's a problem for anyone who finds their express ingress-egress easement of xx feet width reduced to less than that grant.

It's an unusual judgement compared to many other historic judgements supporting the express width of a deeded easement. The case is not about speed bumps or gates, but about physical obstructions placed within the width deeded to the dominant tenant reducing the granted width.

Logically carried out, it would mean in New York that the stated width of an express ingress-egress easement was immaterial and the width would be determined by a court based on the stated purpose of the easement. Very unsettling.

[jk]

Logically carried out, it would mean in New York that the stated width of an express ingress-egress easement was immaterial and the width would be determined by a court based on the stated purpose of the easement. Very unsettling.

I understand but lets look at it a bit differently. Say we have a 30 foot wide easement and there are trees within the easement that do not prevent the dominant tenant from using the easement as intended but restrict its effective width to 20 feet. Does the dominant tenant have the right to remove the trees simply because they want to widen the easement to the full 30 feet?

[LandSurveyor]

Does the dominant tenant have the right to remove the trees simply because they want to widen the easement to the full 30 feet?

Yes.

The easement is already "widened" to the deeded width by it's existence. If not, there is no "deeded" width of an easement.

Should a 100' power line easement be encroached upon by the adjoiners with houses, buildings, rabbit hutches, etc. because the power company only "needs" the eighteen feet between the poles?

If so, there is no point in even describing the limits of an easement (or any other real property right).

[jk]

Yes.
.

If that is correct, then I withdraw any argument but with that, I would swear I have read where a dominant tenant was not allowed to remove flora simply because it was within the easement. I could be wrong.