Cohen v. Adolph Kutner Co.
177 Cal. 592, 1918 Cal. LEXIS 647, 171 P. 424 (1918)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An easement granting a right of way in a specific part of a building, such as a stairway, is extinguished upon the destruction of the building, as the easement is considered a right in the structure itself and not an interest in the underlying land unless a contrary intent is plainly manifested in the grant.
Facts:
- In 1885, W. D. Grady owned a property with a brick building that had an exterior stairway.
- Eliza Ruth planned to purchase the adjacent lot and construct her own building.
- On February 6, 1885, Grady and Ruth executed a written agreement in which Grady granted Ruth, her heirs, and assigns a perpetual right of way 'in, over, down and up said stairway.'
- Relying on this agreement, Ruth purchased her lot, erected a building, and created a doorway from her second story onto Grady's stairway.
- Ruth and her successors in interest used the stairway for access from 1885 until 1915.
- In 1915, the Grady building and the stairway attached to it were destroyed by fire.
- Grady's successors in interest, the defendants, began making preparations to construct a new one-story building on the property without rebuilding the stairway.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Eliza Ruth's successor in interest, sued the defendants, W.D. Grady's successors in interest, in the superior court (trial court).
- The defendants filed a demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint, challenging its legal sufficiency.
- The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer without leave to amend.
- A judgment was entered in favor of the defendants.
- The plaintiff appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an easement granting a perpetual right of way over a stairway in a specific building survive the destruction of that building by fire?
Opinions:
Majority - Melvin, J.
No. An easement for a right of way over a stairway in a specific building does not survive the destruction of that building. The court reasoned that the instrument granted a right tied specifically to the existing stairway structure, not an interest in the underlying land. The purpose of the easement was to provide ingress and egress through the building; once the building was destroyed, the purpose ceased to exist, and the easement was thereby extinguished. The court looked to the intent of the parties, concluding they did not contemplate granting an interest in the real property distinct from the stairway itself. Citing precedents like Hahn v. Baker Lodge and Heartt v. Kruger, the court affirmed the general rule that an easement in a building is extinguished by the destruction of the building it serves. The use of terms like 'easement' and 'forever' did not override the clear intent to limit the right to the life of the structure.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that easements attached to specific structures are distinct from easements in the underlying land. It establishes a default rule that such rights are extinguished when the structure is destroyed, placing the burden on grantees to explicitly contract for an interest in the land or a covenant to rebuild if they desire a more permanent right. This ruling limits the obligations of a servient landowner after a building's destruction, preventing them from being indefinitely encumbered by a right that has lost its original purpose. It requires courts to interpret the scope of such easements by focusing on the parties' intent as evidenced by the grant's language, specifically whether the right was tied to the building or the soil.
