And the maintenance of the easement, if not addressed in the grant, is the responsibility of the dominant estate.
I'm not going to support my posts with the case law for you because you don't seem to read it. But that is the law despite that you keep making up your own law.
They get full use of the length. I disagree on the width statement. A dominant estate should place the least burden that is necessary and appropriate for them to use their easement. For example, a 50 foot wide easement doesn't give them the rights to install a 50 foot wide road. That is the width of a 4 lane freeway and that would be excessive. They can put a 24 foot wide road with 8 foot ditches and then 5 feet of vegetation maintenance beyond each ditch. (That's standard engineering practice for road design. There are other options as well.) Anything wider than 24 feet would be inappropriate.A non-exclusive easement doesn't mean that the dominant estate doesn't get full use of the length and with of the granted easement. They do.
This sentence doesn't make a lot of sense. However, certain things that impede easements, like electric poles, are permitted within the easement area. Other things, like houses, are not. Fences, gates, and speed bumps may or may not be permissible depending on the situation. I will point out that you spend more time telling me I'm wrong than you do actually answering other people's questions on here.What it means is that the servient estate can also use the land with non-permanent impedances such as putting up a structure or a fence or any use that impedes the use of the entire granted easement.
With that said, the servient estate is allowed to do pretty much anything (as long as permitted by local zoning) that he wants do as long as the dominant estate does not object.
The maintenance of the portion of the easement used by the dominant estate is the responsibility of the dominant estate. Maintenance of other improvements within the easement area not used by the dominant estate are not the responsibility of the dominant estate. For example, in the OPs situation, the neighbor uses the easement to access a portion of his property. The roads leading to this portion, even the portions that fall within the easement area but not used by the dominant estate, are the responsibility of the servient estate.And the maintenance of the easement, if not addressed in the grant, is the responsibility of the dominant estate.
I am not making up my own law. I've read a lot of case law about easements as well as had several meetings with attorneys regarding easements. What I'm writing is true. Some of the details depend on context and perspective, and perhaps your perspective is different, but what I'm writing is not wrong.I'm not going to support my posts with the case law for you because you don't seem to read it. But that is the law despite that you keep making up your own law.
Saying that the dominant estate can't use the full width of the easement because it increases the burden (the servitude) is not correct. The servitude was created by the grantor at the time of the grant. If the intent was to only allow a 24 foot road then the grant would have been 24 feet wide or the grant would have specified the width of the road within the easement.
Increasing the servitude is going beyond the intent of the grant; not using the grant. When farmer Joe subdivided his land into 20 acre parcels and granted access easements to those interior parcels, he granted the easement width at 50 feet across those road front parcels. Then 50 years later one of the parcels wants' to develop their 20 acres and put up a planned community. A two lane road is built on the easement. So why did farmer Joe grant a 50 foot easement in the first place? Perhaps he knew that his land would one day be developed. As long as the easement only serves the original 20 acres, it is not considered an increase in servitude (provided there is no language in the grant that prohibits or restricts development.)
Case and point: The servient estate is not allowed to do pretty much anything that he wants as long as the dominant estate does not object. You have it backwards. It is the dominant estate that can use the easement as they wish for the full enjoyment of the intended purpose of the easement.
You are myopic in your view. An easement appurtenant runs with the land, not the owners. What happens in a snippet of time between the servien and dominant estates does not establish the use of the easement with some exceptions. The dominant estate can agree to extinguish the easement by recorded agreement. The dominant estate can establish abandonment of the easement by taking action to abandon such as building a stone wall across the easement or taking some affirmative action to make the easement unusable. In these cases, it is a court that determines that the dominant estate intended to abandon the easement. There are cases where a servient estate has been granted a prescriptive easement for using the easement adverse to the dominant estate for SOL. But those are few and it doesn't extinguish the easement.
But here again, you are myopic. What if I have one servient estate and 50 dominant estates as if often the case in planned communities and subdivisions. What if I have 50 dominant estates who are also servient estates to eachother? If the grant doesn't specify then there may be a recorded maintenance agreement for maintenance that may or may not be referenced in the deeds.
I would like to object to two of your statements.
The dominant estate can only use the easement for the purposes in the grant. The servient estate can use the land for any purpose that does not interfere with the dominant estate.
In other words, the servient estate is allowed to do pretty much anything that he wants as long as the dominant estate does not object. (I'm assuming that the dominant estate would object if the servient estate did something that interfered with the purpose of the easement.)
OK, so Budwad has an easement across Bigtrees property. Bigtrees uses the easement area to build an access road to Bigtrees house. Budwad has not built yet, and at the moment, does not have a improved road to Budwad's property.A well written grant would say who is responsible for maintenance. If it doesn't say then it is by law the responsibility of the dominant to maintain the easement for the full use of the easement for the purpose intended. What part of the easement do you envision that the servient estate uses that could be their responsibility? Budwad has an easement across bigtrees property. It's from the county road to budwad's land. What part of the easement should Budwad maintain? It's obvious that Budwad has to maintain the easement from the county road to his land.
Who should maintain the road that leads from the county road to Bigtrees house? Bigtrees.
Later, Budwad builds a house and runs a separate driveway in the easement area to the public street. Now there are two driveways in the easement area. One to Budwad's house, one to Bigtree's house. Who maintains Bigtrees driveway? It is in the easement area. Clearly, Budwad is not responsible to maintain a separate driveway that leads to Bigtrees house.
However, let's say Budwad didn't want a separate driveway and instead simply extended Bigtrees driveway and now uses Bigtrees driveway to get to his house. Who should maintain the driveway that leads from the public street? Well, it's neighborly to discuss with Bigtrees and then share costs appropriately. But under easement language, Budwad would be responsible to maintain the driveway from the public street to his Budwad's house.
It is interesting to note, Budwad, that in 2015, you cited case law that granted a person the right to install utilities on an access easement. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...63190497152701. You can read your post here where you say that, in case you've forgotten. https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=192374
You're correct in saying that if an easement grants only access and not utilities, one may have to get the courts involved to ensure that utilities can be routed. One way or another, the landlocked parcel will get utilities.