Here is a beaut: What is the legal definition of an easement on a portion of property (property A) granting an adjacent property owner (owner B) "exclusive use and enjoyment" of said portion, running with the land and binding all future property-holders?
I understand that it is basically a very tricky way to NEARLY own said parcel in the event that local or state ordinances prohibit the dividing and selling of the portion outright. What I don't understand is:
1) what are the liability risks/responsibilities of the landowner of property A?
2) is 'exclusive' legally defined in Missouri as a means to exclude even owner A, or does it mean exclusive access by the adjacent landowner B (meaning they cannot sell just the easement to a disinterested 3rd party, for example)?
helpful background:
Went to open house of home for sale (property A) in an exclusive area of St. Louis, MO. Legal property is updated farmhouse on 1.8 acres facing state road that is major 4-lane artery. Adjacent landowner B bought property A several transactions ago. When selling it in 1992, he added the easement that they basically 'kept' the back 1/2 of property A for their 'exclusive' use and enjoyment. Their only obligation spelled out in the exhibit (apparently attached to the sales contract and seemingly filed with the county recorder of deeds on property A) is to 'maintain' that 1/2 of the land and to pay the landowner 15% of the taxes attributable to LAND value only, not improvements. Since they reserved the right to improve their 1/2 with swimming pools, tennis courts or even a house, the buyer of this gem (A) would get to pay taxes for not only a portion of the land they apparently cannot set foot on, but also any improvements the neighbor B sees fit to add, right?
Now the seller is telling me "this has been the situation since 1992 and neither I nor the prior owner" (who entered into this unholy alliance with said adjacent property owner) "has ever had a problem". it seems to me that is due to sheer dumb luck and when the adjacent guy croaks or sells, a whole new can o' worms will open up. Of course, the real estate agent says, "just look at it as the house and .8 acres" -- which is fine until somebody breaks a leg on a gopher hole on the land you own but cannot use and you get sued for the medical bills. or would that not happen since I do not maintain it or use it? Obviously, owner B has no incentive to change this cushy arrangement, or even clarify any verbal assurances he may have made to the two prior property A purchasers.
I would be a fool to pursue this any further, right? I don't see why anyone would buy the place, or am I missing something?
Thanks for any insight,
Cathy in St. Louis

