Way back in 1904, Bailey split her property into three
parts and sold 1/3 to Jones, Murphy, and Gray each. A sewer line crossed
all three properties in order to get to the main sewer line in the street.
Jones was nearest to the main line, so Murphy and Gray's
sewage had to cross under Van Sandt's property.
Jones sold to Van Sandt, and Murphy sold to Royster.
32 years later, the sewer line backed up and flooded Van
Sandt's property. He sued to stop Royster and Gray from using the sewer
line.
If there was no easement, then Royster and Gray
could be liable for trespass.
Van Sandt claimed he had no idea that the sewer line was
under his property.
Easements can be applied if they are apparent.
Van Sandt claimed there was no evidence of an easement
allowing Royster and Gray to use the sewer line.
The Trial Court found for Royster. Van Sandt appealed.
The Trial Court found that the sewer was an appurtenance
to the property.
Appurtenance is a legal term for what belongs to
and goes with something else, the accessories or things usually
conjoined with the substantive matter in question.
The Trial Court found that the easement was
created by implied reservation on the severance of the servient from the
dominant estate.
The servient estate is the land that has the easement
placed on it.
The dominant estate is the land that is served by
the easement.
The Appellate Court affirmed the decision.
The Appellate Court found that:
Jones knew about the sewer.
Van Sandt should have known that his sewage must be
draining somewhere.
Just because something isn't visible, that doesn't mean
it isn't apparent.
An easement can be implied on the basis of
necessity alone.
When the sewer was first constructed, all the land
belonged to Bailey, and you can't have an easement on your own
land. However, when you use part of your land to benefit another part,
that is called a quasi-easement.
The part receiving the benefit is the quasi-dominant
tenement. And the part that is being utilized is the quasi-servient
tenement.
Following the English case of Pyer v. Carter, when
a quasi-servient tenement is transferred to a new owner, there is
an implied reservation of an easement.
Other cases (see Wheeldon v. Burrows for example)
have said just the opposite; that if you want there to be an easement
then it has to be expressly stated.
There are two basic situations in which one can get an implied
easement.
First, an easement is implied when there is a
single tract of land and the tract is divided, and there is continuous
or apparent use of the easement.
Known as an easement by prior use.
You can't have an easement on your own property,
so the easement only appears once the property is divided, until
then it's just a quasi-easement.
The assumption is, that when the property was divided
and sold, the buyers and sellers factored the price of the easement
into the purchase price of the land.
Easement by prior use run with the land and do
not expire.
Second, an easement is implied when the dominant
estate requires the easement for 'enjoyment' of the land, and
the necessity arose when the dominant parcel is severed from the servient
parcel.
Known as an easement by necessity.
Only exists as long as the necessity exists. For
example, if a new sewer line was built, and Royster didn't need Van
Sandt anymore, the easement would become void.
In this case, the original owner, Bailey sold off what
became the servient estates while she originally kept the dominant
estate. Does that make a difference?
Can you sell off your property while reserving an easement
on the property you sell off?
This is known as a right by reservation.
The Courts have held the standard requirement to be an absolute
necessity for the easement, as opposed to a reasonable necessity,
which is what you'd need if the seller was selling the dominant
estate and keeping the servient estate.
