Freeman v. Walther
974 N.Y.S.2d 603, 110 A.D.3d 1312 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An express easement, once extinguished by the merger of the dominant and servient estates into common ownership, can only be recreated by express language in the deed conveying the servient parcel. However, an easement may still be implied if there was unity and subsequent separation of title, a long-continued and obvious prior use, and the use is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant estate.
Facts:
- Three adjacent parcels are involved: a pond property, a five-acre parcel (now plaintiff's), and a triangular parcel (now defendants').
- A pipeline, in existence since at least 1964, runs from the pond, across the five-acre parcel, to the triangular parcel, and was continuously used by the owners of the triangular parcel.
- In 1986, Michael and Alison Haynes acquired title to all three parcels, bringing them under common ownership.
- In 1989, the Hayneses sold the pond property, reserving in that deed the right for their remaining lands (the five-acre and triangular parcels) to use the water and pipeline located on the pond property.
- Subsequently, the Hayneses sold the five-acre parcel and the triangular parcel in separate conveyances; the deed for the five-acre parcel (the servient estate) contained no reference to an easement for the pipeline.
- Defendants acquired the triangular parcel in 1999 and continued to use the pipeline.
- Plaintiff acquired the five-acre parcel in 2008 and, after commencing construction, a dispute arose with defendants over their use and repair of the pipeline on her property.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff commenced an action in the Supreme Court of Schoharie County, New York (a trial-level court).
- Defendants answered and asserted five counterclaims, including for an express easement and an easement by implication.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on their counterclaims.
- The Supreme Court denied defendants' motion and, searching the record, granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, dismissing the counterclaims.
- Defendants (as appellants) appealed the order to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department (an intermediate appellate 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:
After an express easement for a water pipeline is extinguished by the merger of title, does an enforceable easement exist, either by express recreation or by implication, where the subsequent deed conveying the servient estate is silent as to the easement but the pipeline's use was long-continued and obvious?
Opinions:
Majority - Stein, J.
No as to an express easement, but potentially Yes as to an implied easement. An express easement was not recreated because it was extinguished by the merger doctrine and was not subsequently re-established in the deed conveying the servient estate. However, a material issue of fact exists as to whether an easement by implication was created, because while unity of title and obvious prior use are established, the reasonable necessity of the use remains in question. The court reasoned that the original express easement was extinguished in 1986 when the Hayneses took common ownership of all three parcels, under the doctrine that one cannot have an easement in one's own land. The reservation of rights in the 1989 deed conveying the pond property only created an easement across that property; it did not create an easement between the two parcels the Hayneses still owned. For the easement to be recreated, it must have been explicitly stated in the deed that conveyed the servient estate (plaintiff's five-acre parcel), which it was not. Regarding the easement by implication, the court found the first two elements of the test were met: unity and subsequent separation of title, and long-continued, obvious use. However, it reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment because the record was insufficient to determine, as a matter of law, whether the pipeline was reasonably necessary for defendants' enjoyment of their property or merely a convenience. This question of fact required further proceedings.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the strict requirements for recreating an express easement after it has been extinguished by the merger doctrine, emphasizing that it must be explicitly stated in the conveyance of the servient estate. The case also clarifies the 'reasonable necessity' standard for an easement by implication, distinguishing it from the stricter 'absolute necessity' and highlighting that a lack of conclusive evidence on this factual issue precludes summary judgment. The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of precise deed drafting and demonstrates that long-standing use of property can create durable rights even in the absence of an express agreement, provided the element of necessity is met.
