Green v. Lupo
647 P.2d 51 (1982) 32 Wash. App. 318 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
There is a strong legal presumption that an easement is appurtenant to a particular tract of land rather than personal (in gross). Where the granting instrument is ambiguous as to the nature of the easement, parol evidence is admissible to determine the parties' intent, but the court's interpretation must favor an appurtenant easement unless the evidence clearly indicates a contrary intent.
Facts:
- Don and Florence Green owned a large tract of land and sold the northern portion to the defendants under a real estate contract.
- While the defendants were still making payments, they requested a deed release for a small section of their parcel to secure financing for a home.
- The Greens agreed in exchange for the defendants' written promise to grant an easement along the southern 30 feet of the defendants' property once they obtained full title.
- The written agreement stated the easement was for "Don Green and Florence B. Green" for "ingress and egress for road and utilities purpose."
- The Greens later developed their remaining southern property for mobile home occupancy.
- Tension arose after some occupants of the Greens' mobile home development used the easement area for riding motorcycles.
- After obtaining full title to their property, the defendants refused to formally grant the easement and blocked access by placing logs along the boundary.
Procedural Posture:
- Don and Florence Green sued the defendants in a state trial court, seeking specific performance of an agreement to grant an easement.
- The trial court entered a decree finding that an easement existed but concluded it was personal to the Greens, limiting its use and prohibiting motorcycles.
- The Greens, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decree to the Court of Appeals of Washington, challenging the finding that the easement was personal.
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 for ingress, egress, and utilities, granted in writing to named individuals who own adjacent land, create a personal easement (in gross) rather than an easement appurtenant to their land when the document does not expressly characterize it as one or the other?
Opinions:
Majority - Petrich, A.C.J.
No. An easement granted to adjacent landowners for ingress, egress, and utilities is appurtenant to the land, not personal to the grantees, despite the instrument naming them individually. The written agreement was ambiguous because naming the grantees suggested a personal easement, while the purpose (access and utilities for adjacent land) suggested an appurtenant one, thus making parol evidence admissible. However, Washington law strongly presumes easements are appurtenant, not personal (in gross). The trial court's own finding that the easement was to provide access to the Greens' land for building a cabin supports the conclusion that it was intended to benefit the land itself. Therefore, the trial court erred in concluding the easement was personal; it is appurtenant and transfers with the dominant estate to subsequent owners. While the servient landowner can impose reasonable restrictions to prevent a nuisance, such as dangerous motorcycle use, a complete ban may unreasonably interfere with the dominant owner's use and requires further consideration.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strong judicial preference for construing easements as appurtenant to the land rather than personal (in gross). It establishes that ambiguity in a granting instrument—such as naming individual grantees while stating a purpose that benefits land—opens the door to parol evidence but does not displace the powerful legal presumption in favor of appurtenant easements. The decision provides a clear framework: determine ambiguity first, then interpret the evidence through the lens of this presumption. This promotes certainty in land transactions, as future purchasers can rely on easements for access being tied to the property they are buying, rather than being personal rights that could terminate.
