AKG Real Estate, LLC v. Kosterman
717 N.W.2d 835 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The owner of a servient estate cannot unilaterally relocate or terminate an express easement with a specifically defined location, even if an alternative is provided, as long as the easement's original purpose can still be accomplished.
Facts:
- Prior to 1960, Louis and Angeline Chvilicek owned an 84-acre parcel of land.
- In 1960, they deeded a four-acre, landlocked parcel (the Dominant Estate) to their son and daughter-in-law, Edward and Audrey Chvilicek, and granted a 30-foot-wide easement for ingress and egress across their remaining 80 acres (the Servient Estate).
- In 1961, they granted a second, 66-foot-wide easement along the same course to make it possible for the path to become a public road.
- In 1998, AKG Real Estate, LLC (AKG) purchased the 80-acre Servient Estate, with deeds expressly noting the existence of recorded easements.
- In 2000, Edward and Audrey Chvilicek sold the four-acre Dominant Estate to Patrick and Susan Kosterman.
- AKG planned to develop a subdivision on its property but learned that Department of Transportation regulations prevented the construction of a public road along the path of the Kostermans' easement.
- AKG proposed providing the Kostermans with alternative access to a public road via a new cul-de-sac and developing lots over the original easement path.
- The Kostermans refused to release or relocate their easement rights, objecting to the proposed circuitous route and the negative impact on their property's layout and address.
Procedural Posture:
- AKG Real Estate, LLC sought a declaratory judgment in Racine County Circuit Court to terminate the easements upon providing alternate public road access.
- The Kostermans counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that the easements would remain in effect.
- The circuit court granted partial summary judgment, ruling the 1998 easement would terminate but the 1961 easement would remain.
- Both parties appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals, as the intermediate appellate court, affirmed the termination of the 1998 easement and reversed the circuit court regarding the 1961 easement, holding that both should terminate under the doctrine of changed conditions.
- The Kostermans, as petitioners, sought and were granted review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a court authorize the owner of a servient estate to unilaterally relocate or terminate an express, recorded easement against the will of the dominant estate owner?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Prosser
No. The owner of a servient estate cannot unilaterally relocate or terminate an express easement. The court explicitly rejects the modern approach of the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes §§ 4.8(3) and 7.10, which would permit judicial modification of easements based on changed conditions or for economic efficiency. Under long-standing Wisconsin precedent, an express easement for ingress and egress does not terminate simply because an alternative route becomes available or the easement is no longer strictly necessary. The primary purpose of the 1961 easement was to provide ingress and egress along a specific course, a purpose that is still possible and has not been frustrated. The court prioritizes the certainty of recorded property rights over balancing the equities or preventing economic waste, affirming that such rights cannot be unilaterally altered by the servient owner.
Concurring - Chief Justice Abrahamson
No. I agree with the result but find the majority's stated rule of law too broad. An express easement can, in fact, terminate if the particular purpose for which it was granted ceases. However, this case does not meet the stringent 'changed conditions' standard under the Restatement, as the proposed relocation would clearly increase the burdens on the Kostermans. Therefore, the court need not decide whether to adopt the Restatement provisions, as they would not apply to these facts anyway.
Concurring - Justice Bradley
No. This is a straightforward case that does not require an analysis of the Restatement. The 1961 express easement was granted 'for purposes of ingress and egress,' and it is still used for that purpose. Under established Wisconsin law, whether the easement remains 'necessary' is irrelevant for an express grant. Since the easement's purpose has not become impossible and none of the common law grounds for extinguishment (like abandonment or consent) apply, the easement must continue.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Wisconsin's commitment to a traditional, strict interpretation of property rights, prioritizing certainty and the original intent of the grantors over modern, flexible doctrines aimed at promoting economic efficiency. By squarely rejecting the Restatement's approach, the court signals that the rights of a dominant estate holder are paramount and cannot be diminished by a court balancing the hardships or conveniences of the parties. This holding provides strong protection for easement holders but may create challenges for developers of servient estates, who can be blocked by a 'holdout' easement owner, even when a reasonable alternative is offered.
Unlock the full brief for AKG Real Estate, LLC v. Kosterman