Cox v. Glenbrook Co.
371 P.2d 647 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An easement granted with a 'full right of use' is appurtenant to the dominant estate, and the right to use the easement passes to subsequent owners of subdivided parcels of that estate. The easement owner may reasonably improve the way but may not widen it beyond the width contemplated by the original parties, and any increase in use must not create an unreasonable burden on the servient estate.
Facts:
- In 1938, Glenbrook Company granted Henry Quill an easement with 'full right of use' over its private roads to access his 80-acre property.
- The grant specified that the easement was for Quill, 'his heirs and assigns forever'.
- At the time of the grant, the primary road used was a narrow, unpaved, single-lane road.
- In 1960, after a series of sales, Cox and Detrick purchased the 80-acre dominant estate.
- Cox and Detrick proposed to subdivide the 80-acre property into 40 to 60 residential parcels, which would significantly increase traffic on the easement.
- Cox and Detrick began preliminary work, including leveling a portion of the road and knocking down trees in an attempt to widen it.
- Glenbrook Company, the owner of the servient estate, operates a quiet, seasonal family resort through which the easement's roads pass.
Procedural Posture:
- Glenbrook Company filed a complaint in the trial court requesting a declaratory judgment on the scope of the Quill Easement.
- Cox and Detrick filed an answer and counterclaim, also seeking a declaratory judgment.
- The trial court, after a bench trial, entered a judgment declaring that the easement's use was limited to a single family, to the roads as currently constructed, and that the proposed subdivision would constitute an illegal burden.
- Cox and Detrick, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to this 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:
Does a grant of an easement with a 'full right of use' limit the use of the right-of-way to a single family in occupancy and prohibit the dominant estate owner from improving or widening the road?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, J.
No. The grant does not limit the use of the right-of-way to a single family, nor does it prohibit reasonable improvements, but it does prohibit widening the road. The phrase 'full right of use' is clear and unambiguous and does not mean a 'restricted right of use.' The easement is appurtenant to the dominant estate, so when the estate is subdivided, the privilege of use is transferred to the owners of each new parcel; limiting it to a 'single family' would improperly destroy its appurtenant character. While the owner of an easement may make reasonable repairs and improvements (like leveling the road) that promote its purpose, they cannot widen the way beyond what was intended at the time of the grant. As the evidence showed the road was intended to be single-car width, it is limited to that dimension. The question of whether the increased use from the proposed subdivision would constitute an 'unreasonable burden' is a question of fact that is premature to decide, as it depends on evidence of the actual use and its consequences in the future.
Concurring - Badt, C. J.
No. The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's conclusions but clarifies a point on declaratory judgments. It emphasizes that a court is empowered to make a declaratory determination regarding a present threat of invasion of rights. Therefore, an expressed intention to perform acts that would surcharge a servient tenement with an unreasonable burden can be addressed by a court and does not necessarily have to await the actual event.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the default rules for interpreting the scope of easements when a dominant estate is subdivided. It establishes that the law favors the natural development of the dominant estate, allowing the easement to serve each subdivided parcel. However, it strongly protects the servient estate from physical alterations to the easement that were not contemplated in the original grant, such as widening the path. The court's decision to treat the 'unreasonable burden' issue as a premature question of fact underscores that this determination is highly fact-specific and cannot be based on proposed plans alone, requiring evidence of actual interference or harm.
Unlock the full brief for Cox v. Glenbrook Co.