SMALL SQUABBLES, BIG PRINCIPLES
We like to deal in broad pronouncements of property law here, but the sad fact is that a lot of litigation about property rights is pretty small minded. The parties today, Steve and Maggie, had a fairly common arrangement. Steve’s house was landlocked, but he owned an easement to cross Maggie’s place on a driveway.
The easement was 50 feet wide, but the drive itself was only 12 feet wide. We cannot tell who started the sniping. Maybe it was Steve, who piggishly demanded dominion over all 50 feet of the easement, whether he used it or not, banning Maggie from landscaping even where it did not interfere with the driveway. Maybe Maggie set out to harass Steve by installing fences, placing ornamental boulders and planting trees to crowd the driveway.
Clearly, however, things devolved to the point that both Steve and Maggie felt it was worth it to pay lawyers to slug it out in court. Not that we think that’s all bad: lawyers have to eat, too. But the law was pretty settled, and it seems that the lawyers should have dragged their respective clients by the ear into a conference room, where the facts of life (and litigation) could be explained.
Still, there’s a worthwhile principle here for the many homeowners who complain to us every year about various utilities coming through their yards, trimming or removing trees, tearing up bushes and laying waste to landscaping. The utilities invariably wave their easements at the homeowners and say, “read it and weep.” The homeowners angrily ask, “Can they do that?”
Then, we have to explain that the homeowner holds what is called a “servient estate,” which is as subordinate and groveling to the easement holder (the “dominant estate)” as the names imply. The utilities and their maraudering contractors can do what is reasonable to permit they to get the benefit of the easement for which they bargained.
As well, there’s a second worthwhile principle in today’s case. If you get into a kerfuffle as a property owner or an easement holder, try to work it out. The old legal aphorism is true: a bad settlement is better than a good lawsuit.
Campbell v. Sullivan, Case No. FSTCV166028793S (Superior Ct. of Connecticut, Dec. 11, 2017) 2017 Conn. Super. LEXIS 5104: Maggie Sullivan is the homeowner at 1 Lennon Lane in Wilton. Steve Campbell owns the abutting property at 2 Lennon Lane. Steve has an easement for a 50-foot wide strip across Maggie’s property to be used as “a right of way for all lawful purposes of ingress and egress, including public utilities.” The easement is the only way Steve has to get from the street to his property.
The fifty-foot-wide right of way described by this easement contains a paved driveway about 12-foot wide known as Lennon Lane.
Steve sued Maggie, claiming that over time, she had placed rocks and erected fencing within the 50-foot right of way, as well as “allowing” trees and other overgrowth to impede ingress and egress through the easement. Maggie argued that that any actions she has taken to encroach into the easement are minimal, reasonable, and do not impede Steve’s access to 2 Lennon Lane. For her part, Maggie complained that Steve had trimmed trees and other plants within the 50-foot right of way, which are actually located on her property, without her consent. Steve responds that he is entitled to the entire 50-foot right of way as granted by the easement, and anything Maggie places within the 50 feet violates his rights.
Held: Steve and Maggie couldn’t work things out for themselves, so the court did it for them, giving each a little and taking from each a little.
To figure out the nature of Steve’s rights, the court started with the deed itself, and then looked to the situation of the property and the surrounding circumstances, all in order to “ascertain the intention of the parties…” The language of the grant is given its ordinary meaning in the absence of anything in the situation or surrounding circumstances which indicates a contrary intent.
The principle is that the “holder of an easement… is entitled to use the servient estate in a manner that is reasonably necessary for the convenient enjoyment of the servitude.” This means that the easement holder can use the easement in any way reasonably necessary to fulfill the intent of the parties. The court held that the “right of way is for ingress and egress. This is broad enough to include the ability to turn around, reverse, and enter and exit safely. It does not include the right to park on the right of way. On the other hand, merely because the defendant owns the fee in the right of way, she does not have the right to obstruct the plaintiffs right for all lawful purposes of ingress and egress.”
The court said it was Steve’s job to maintain the easement, but his maintenance had to be reasonable. “The holder of an easement,” the court said, “is not entitled to cause unreasonable damage to the servient estate or interfere unreasonably with its enjoyment. The law is settled that the obligation of the owner of the servient estate, as regards an easement, is not to maintain it, but to refrain from doing or suffering something to be done which results in an impairment of it.
Under these circumstances, the court said, Steve has no right to compel Maggie to maintain it for his benefit. He had to do it, and do it “in a reasonable fashion.”
Steve spun a tale about expecting “prefabricated modules” that would be used as additions to his house. He said he would need at least 30 feet of the 50-foot easement for the trucks. It turned out, however, that Steve had not exactly ordered the prefabs yet, did not know when he would order them, and when he would pay for them. The court was unimpressed, saying, “As of the time of this decision, the plaintiffs plans to remodel his home are not definitive reasons as to why… he would need access to the entire fifty-foot right of way .
The court ordered some of the rocks, fencing and bushes removed. It prohibited Steve from parking in the easement, and limited tree trimming to one area where the branches interfered with ingress.
– Tom Root
One thought on “Case of the Day – Wednesday, January 19, 2022”
Maggie did not set out to harass steve by installing fences, placing ornamental boulders nor planting trees. The fencing had been installed in the same areas on maggie’s property for over 5 yrs prior to steve purchasing 2 lennon lane in 2013 – the previous 2 lennon owners had no issue with the fencing. The same renters that rented 2 lennon lane for approx. 6 yrs prior to steve purchasing, continued renting 2 lennon lane for approx. 5 yrs after steve purchased – the fencing never impeded ingress or egress to 2 lennon lane for the renters, owners, snow plows, utility vehicles….. Boulders were placed on maggie’s property maintained grass area to help deter 2 lennon lane affiliates from doing burnouts on the grassy maintained area, which was allegedly caught on video a few times – the boulders did not impede ingress or egress to 2 lennon lane. No trees were planted in the 50′ row by maggie. Maggie wanted to work things out – Steve would not discuss discussing. Lennon Lane is a 50′ right of way that runs from kensett avenue, through lot a, lot b & lot c of lennon lane, to the old lot d now part of 40 danbury road but still zoned residential. “Others” have deeded rights to the lennon lane row for lawful ingress & egress. See map 1010 dated 1950 filed in the clerk’s office for the 50′ lennon lane row