Frenning v. Dow
1988 WL 75031, 544 A. 2d 145, 1988 R.I. LEXIS 112 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The misuse or overuse of an easement does not typically justify its complete extinguishment unless it is impossible to sever the increased burden from the original, rightful use, thereby making injunctive relief ineffective.
Facts:
- In 1838, defendants' predecessor in title (Gray) granted an easement across their land to plaintiffs' predecessor (Shaw).
- The easement was for the benefit of a 102-acre parcel (the dominant tenement) and allowed passage with teams, carriages, stock, or on foot.
- Over time, the plaintiffs acquired additional contiguous land, increasing their total holdings to 257 acres.
- Plaintiffs began using the easement to service not only the original 102-acre parcel but also the newly acquired 155 acres with farm equipment.
- Plaintiffs also used the easement to access a new house built on an adjoining, non-dominant parcel.
- On at least one occasion, plaintiffs' social guests in 25 automobiles used the easement to access the property for a party.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendants (owners of the servient tenement) brought an action against the plaintiffs (owners of the dominant tenement) in the Superior Court, a court of first instance.
- The trial justice found that the plaintiffs had excessively used the easement and that the overuse could not be severed from the rightful use.
- The Superior Court entered a judgment extinguishing the plaintiffs' easement.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the judgment of extinguishment to 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 the misuse of an easement to serve after-acquired, contiguous land justify the complete extinguishment of that easement when it is difficult, but not impossible, to separate the proper use from the improper use?
Opinions:
Majority - Weisberger, Justice
No. The misuse of an easement does not justify its complete extinguishment unless it is impossible to sever the increased burden from the proper, original burden. Courts of equity abhor forfeiture and will not extinguish a property right when a less drastic remedy, such as an injunction, is available. Citing Penn Bowling Recreation Centers, Inc. v. Hot Shoppes, Inc., the court reasoned that the right to an easement is not lost by using it in an unauthorized manner unless the proper and improper uses are inseparable. While acknowledging the trial justice's factual findings of overuse, the court rejected the legal conclusion that it was impossible to fashion a remedy. The court held that modern courts of equity are capable of supervising complex situations and that the burden falls on the plaintiffs (the dominant tenement owners) to propose a workable plan to the trial court that limits the easement's use to the original dominant tenement, which could then be monitored and enforced.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that extinguishment of an easement is a remedy of last resort, heavily disfavored by courts of equity. It establishes a procedural framework for resolving easement misuse cases: rather than an all-or-nothing outcome, the court places an affirmative burden on the misusing party to propose a practical solution. This approach preserves vested property rights while still protecting the servient landowner from undue burdens, influencing future cases to seek injunctive solutions rather than outright forfeiture.
