Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1

    Default Does an Easement Granted to Specified People Run With the Land

    My question involves real estate located in the State of: California

    An ingress/egress easement on my land was granted to the neighbor and his wife by a previous owner. It specifies type of use, but there is no end date or any verbiage like appurtenant (or whatever the correct term is) to state that it is permanent. The easement also specifies the neighbor and wife by name as opposed to saying the "owners of property at xxx address".

    does this mean the easement still "stays with the land" or does it end when the named neighbor/wife dies?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,056

    Default Re: Easement Granted to Specified People

    Quote Quoting ShouldaGoneToLawSchool
    View Post
    My question involves real estate located in the State of: California

    An ingress/egress easement on my land was granted to the neighbor and his wife by a previous owner. It specifies type of use, but there is no end date or any verbiage like appurtenant (or whatever the correct term is) to state that it is permanent. The easement also specifies the neighbor and wife by name as opposed to saying the "owners of property at xxx address".

    does this mean the easement still "stays with the land" or does it end when the named neighbor/wife dies?
    The intent of the grantor and grantee at the time of the grant is what matters even though the language may not be specific enough. When the intent of the parties is not spelled out in the plain language of the grant, a court will look at intrinsic evidence to determine what the intent was. For example: if the easement is for ingress and egress and the land was otherwise landlocked, the court would find that the easement was indeed appurtenant. Or if there are utilities on or under the easement, then it would also be appurtenant.

    What is the use that is specified in the language?

    Chances are that an easement for ingress/egress would be appurtenant and not in gross.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    8

    Default Re: Easement Granted to Specified People

    Agree with budwad, ingress/egress easements are typically always pertinent to the parcel it's providing access to so it wouldn't be extinguished with the transfer of ownership or death of the easement's grantees. Even with the absence of specific appurtenant language, the intent appears to be so.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Easement Granted to Specified People

    You would need to post up the entire granting language, names and parcels redacted, for us to even get a start on this. An ingress/egress easement can certainly be an easement in gross if so constructed.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    629

    Default Re: Easement Granted to Specified People

    does this neighbor have other access from their property to the public streets or will they be landlocked if they didn't have access across your land?
    If they do have other access then this may have just been an easement for convenience issues between friends.

    But if they don't have other access, even if the easement was really written to only be assigned to the current owners, the next owners will be suing you for access if there is none.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,056

    Default Re: Easement Granted to Specified People

    Quote Quoting gisguy
    View Post
    You would need to post up the entire granting language, names and parcels redacted, for us to even get a start on this. An ingress/egress easement can certainly be an easement in gross if so constructed.
    Since OP posted that the grant language in the deed did not say that the easement was in gross or appurtenant, the CA courts have decided that the grant will be decided in favor of the grantor.

    While it is possible to have an easement for ingress and egress in gross, if the language is silent as to whether the easement is in gross or appurtenant , the courts in CA have said that it would be appurtenant.

    In interpreting incomplete or ambiguous deeds, courts may consider extrinsic evidence of the circumstances under which the deed was made. (Katz, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 522; see 1647; Parsons v. Bristol Development Co. (1965) 62 Cal.2d 861, 865 [44 Cal. Rptr. 767, 402 P.2d 839].) "`"As stated in Wright v. Best, 19 Cal.2d 368, at page 383 [121 P.2d 702]: `... when the deed does not expressly declare an easement to be appurtenant, or when the language of the deed is ambiguous, and it does not clearly appear whether an easement was intended to be in gross or appurtenant to land, evidence aliunde the document is admissible to determine the nature of the easement and to establish a dominant tenement. [Citations.]'"'" (Katz, supra, at p. 523, quoting Schofield v. Bany (1959) 175 Cal. App.2d 534, 536-537 [346 P.2d 891].)

    In considering extrinsic evidence of the nature of an easement, courts may consider the type of rights conveyed and the relationship between the easement and other real property owned by the recipient of the easement. (3 Miller & Starr, op. cit. supra, 18:7, p. 259; see Elliott v. McCombs (1941) 17 Cal.2d 23, 27-30 [109 P.2d 329].) As an illustration, Miller and Starr suggest that where a roadway easement provides access to a particular parcel of real property a court may infer the easement is appurtenant to that parcel. (3 Miller & Starr, op. cit. supra, at p. 259.)
    So absent language that specifically grants an easement in gross, the courts will look at the easement as appurtenant.

    Courts also employ two rules of particular concern here. The first rule, of statutory origin, is that "a reservation in any grant, ... is to be interpreted in favor of the grantor." ( 1069; Martin v. Lloyd (1892) 94 Cal. 195, 203 [29 P. 491]; 2 Miller & Starr, op. cit. supra, 14:52, p. 580.) The second rule, of judicial origin, is that an easement will not be interpreted as being in gross if it may fairly be interpreted as being appurtenant. (Continental Baking Co. v. Katz, supra, 68 Cal.2d at p. 523; Elliott v. McCombs, supra, 17 Cal.2d at p. 29; 3 Miller & Starr, op. cit. supra, 18:7, p. 260.)
    So to your replay, if the grant or the transfer of the easement rights in the deed do not specify that the easement is in gross, the court looks at it as being appurtenant.

    (2a) Easements are classified as appurtenant or in gross. ( 801; Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 521 [67 Cal. Rptr. 761, 439 P.2d 889].) (3a) The basic effect of the distinction between easements appurtenant and easements in gross arises when the owner of an easement conveys his property. The conveyance of the dominant tenement transfers all appurtenant easements to the grantee, even though the easements are not specifically mentioned in the deed. ( 1084, 1104; 3 Miller & Starr, op. cit. supra, 18:5, p. 256.) (2b) An easement in gross, unlike an appurtenant easement, is merely a personal right to use the land of another. (3 Miller & Starr, op cit. supra, 18:6, p. 257.) (3b) It does not pass with the land.
    Since there was a conveyance of rights in the deed, the court would see that as appurtenant.
    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...48566660848235

  7. #7

    Default Re: Easement Granted to Specified People

    Since OP posted that the grant language in the deed did not say that the easement was in gross or appurtenant, the CA courts have decided that the grant will be decided in favor of the grantor.
    And you are just making this stuff up again. Until you can actually read the document, you are just guessing again, and posting up unrelated cases as if quantity somehow equals quality. We have been through all of this long before. I challenged you about a year ago to do a better job here, and you are back to your old stuff.

    Based on what the OP has said, your reply is just guesswork. Based on what we have in the thread so far, it is impossible to determine if the unrevealed document under discussion is even an easement at all. It may be a license! Understand that something called an "easement" might be exactly that, a license. None of us know at this point. We should not try to "channel" the unknown here.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,056

    Default Re: Easement Granted to Specified People

    Quote Quoting gisguy
    View Post
    And you are just making this stuff up again. Until you can actually read the document, you are just guessing again, and posting up unrelated cases as if quantity somehow equals quality. We have been through all of this long before. I challenged you about a year ago to do a better job here, and you are back to your old stuff..
    I'm not understanding what you think what stuff you thing I'm making up. The OP was clear with their post. It was a transfer of rights in a deed did not articulate that the easement was appurtenant or in gross. I linked to and cited a CL case that articulates established case law. The fact that the facts of that case are not exactly those of the present case does not make the case irrelevant. They are citing as established law in CA.

    Did you read the cites that that were linked to? I doubt it . Your interest is to troll me.

    And you now you interject license. Really? why don't just stick to what the OP posts.


    If someone needs to explain what case law means, just say so. You are nothing but a troll because you think that you are all knowing and the reality is that you are just trolling my posts.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Easement Granted to Specified People

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    I'm not understanding what you think what stuff you thing I'm making up. The OP was clear with their post. It was a transfer of rights in a deed did not articulate that the easement was appurtenant or in gross. I linked to and cited a CL case that articulates established case law. The fact that the facts of that case are not exactly those of the present case does not make the case irrelevant. They are citing as established law in CA.

    Did you read the cites that that were linked to? I doubt it . Your interest is to troll me.

    And you now you interject license. Really? why don't just stick to what the OP posts.


    If someone needs to explain what case law means, just say so. You are nothing but a troll because you think that you are all knowing and the reality is that you are just trolling my posts.
    It's basically about what you don't know about the actual language of the grant isn't it? You have attempted to read the mind of the OP, expound as if an expert, and you are caught at it again. It's just too easy for us to do so.

    There are over a hundred threads by you here asking for the "actual granting language" of an easement but you are exempt from even your own rules. You are just a sad sack desperate for personal attention here as you have apparently been kicked off of other sites which are moderated. That's not my problem or that of the others here you have attacked personally.

    First of seven examples: jk here does not know anything as he is apparently from "Hicksville". You are just a sad little name caller and a schoolyard bully. There is no excuse for your behavior.

    Just a starter for you budwad. You have no friends left here if you ever have had any. No one is afraid of you or me here..

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,056

    Default Re: Easement Granted to Specified People

    Quote Quoting gisguy
    View Post
    It's basically about what you don't know about the actual language of the grant isn't it? You have attempted to read the mind of the OP, expound as if an expert, and you are caught at it again. It's just too easy for us to do so...
    I'm not reading minds at least not the OP's mind. He wrote:
    An ingress/egress easement on my land was granted to the neighbor and his wife by a previous owner. It specifies type of use, but there is no end date or any verbiage like appurtenant (or whatever the correct term is) to state that it is permanent. The easement also specifies the neighbor and wife by name as opposed to saying the "owners of property at xxx address".
    That appears to say that there is much language missing that would give plain language meaning to the grant. So for you to think that there is something in the language that would answer the question in this case is just a ploy by you to criticize. Your pat answer to almost all questions is what is the language and you need an attorney. That is not explaining the law to those that ask questions. Explaining the law, the statutes, and the case law is not necessary interpreting a grant but gives the poster some knowledge.

    You on the other hand have never once cited a statute or a court president. All you do is troll my posts and even when we actually agree on a topic, you have to restate exactly what I posted. Like a gorilla pounding his chest so that all the other apes in the forest can hear you. But you do it not to educate. You do it because of your personal vendetta dating back to your previous identity (JML).


    Quote Quoting gisguy
    View Post
    There are over a hundred threads by you here asking for the "actual granting language" of an easement but you are exempt from even your own rules. You are just a sad sack desperate for personal attention here as you have apparently been kicked off of other sites which are moderated. That's not my problem or that of the others here you have attacked personally...
    If you in fact read back through thousands of my threads to be able to say that there are over a hundred threads posted by me asking for granting language, you have a real psychological problem. Your preoccupation with me honors me as sick as it is. You are one sick puppy.

    You are projecting again; You are just a sad sack desperate for personal attention here as you have apparently been kicked off of other sites which are moderated.

    I am a member of only one forum site, this one. I am not and have never joined any other forums that deal with legal issues. I have never been banned or kicked of any site. So if you want to post what site you think I have been kicked off, please do so. Otherwise, stop making up unsubstantiated BS. Oh wait, that is what you do. Pound your chest to get attention and troll my posts to get me to react. Well I only respond to show what a sick puppy you are. Emotionally and intellectually, I don't give a damn what you think.


    Quote Quoting gisguy
    View Post
    First of seven examples: jk here does not know anything as he is apparently from "Hicksville". You are just a sad little name caller and a schoolyard bully. There is no excuse for your behavior.

    Just a starter for you budwad. You have no friends left here if you ever have had any. No one is afraid of you or me here..
    You are yet again projecting. But to be honest, there was a time where JK and I had a few disagreements but I have come to respect his opinion. Please do post the other six to expose my attacks on other member.

    This is an anonymous forum. I'm certain that there are members that have known each other since this forum was started. I have always thought that it was a closed and close group. I'm not here to make friends on the internet. I actually do have a life with family and friends, work, and hobbies. I come here because I enjoy learning about the law and in particular, the law that deals with easements, land use, government, and more.

    John, you really need to get over your obsession. I'll see you on my next post. Try to stick to the law. Here, I will make your next post easy for you. Just copy and past.

    We need to read the entire language of the post and you most likely need an attorney. BTW, Budwad doesn't know what he is talking about.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Creation of an Easement: How to Get a Formal Easement Granted by a Neighbor
    By Bigjon in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-18-2015, 05:59 AM
  2. Easement Use and Enforcement: Easement Granted to Someone Who Does Not Own Property
    By mikemark8 in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-27-2012, 03:14 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-23-2011, 01:57 PM
  4. Creation of an Easement: Driveway Easement Was Never Granted
    By phikapone in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-13-2008, 07:06 AM
  5. Inheritance of Land Willed To Two People
    By Mrsawd in forum Estate Planning, Administration and Probate
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-17-2008, 05:18 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources