Hayes v. Aquia Marina, Inc.
414 S.E.2d 820 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an easement is created by a general grant without express limitations, its use may be expanded for any purpose to which the dominant estate can be reasonably devoted, and a mere increase in the degree of use does not constitute an overburdening. The dominant estate owner also has the right to make reasonable improvements to the easement, such as paving, so long as they do not unreasonably increase the burden on the servient estate.
Facts:
- In 1951, the predecessors in title for Robert C. Hayes and Aquia Marina, Inc. executed a written agreement establishing a 15-foot wide easement or 'private roadway' for ingress and egress.
- The instrument creating the easement did not contain any language limiting its use for commercial or domestic purposes.
- By 1959, the dominant estate was being used as a small commercial marina with a pier and approximately 10 boat slips.
- Between 1961 and 1964, the marina was expanded to 84 boat slips and has operated commercially for the general public ever since.
- The easement roadway providing the sole land access to the marina is constructed of dirt and gravel.
- In 1989, Aquia Marina's owner, Gnegy, received a special use permit to expand the marina from 84 to 280 boat slips, offering the same types of services.
- Gnegy also proposed to pave the dirt and gravel easement.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert C. Hayes and other servient landowners (Hayes) brought a chancery suit in a Virginia trial court against Aquia Marina, Inc. and its owners (Gnegy).
- Hayes sought an injunction to prevent Gnegy from expanding the marina and increasing traffic over the easement.
- The trial court referred the case to a commissioner in chancery.
- After a hearing, the commissioner filed a report finding that the easement was not limited, the proposed expansion was reasonable, and the expansion would not overburden the easement.
- Hayes filed exceptions to the commissioner's report with the trial court.
- The trial court overruled Hayes's exceptions and entered a final decree confirming the commissioner's report in its entirety.
- Hayes (appellant) appealed the trial court's final decree to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
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 proposed expansion of a commercial marina on a dominant estate from 84 to 280 boat slips overburden a servient estate when the easement for access was created by a general grant without use limitations?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stephenson
No. The proposed expansion of the marina from 84 to 280 boat slips does not overburden the easement. An easement created by a general grant, without words limiting its use, is not affected by any reasonable change in the use of the dominant estate. The court reasoned that the proposed expansion represents a change in the degree of use, not the type of use, which does not constitute an additional burden on the servient estate. The court cited its precedent in Cushman Corporation v. Barnes, which held that an increase in the degree of burden is not sufficient to deny the use of a right of way. Here, the dominant estate has long been devoted to a commercial marina; expanding it is a reasonable future use. The court also held that the dominant estate owner has the right to make reasonable improvements to the easement, including paving, provided the improvement does not unreasonably increase the burden on the servient estate, which was found to be the case here.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that general grants of easement are interpreted broadly to accommodate the reasonable development of the dominant estate. It distinguishes between an increase in the 'degree' of use (volume of traffic), which is generally permissible, and a change in the 'type' of use, which is not. This places a heavy burden on the creators of easements to include specific, restrictive language if they wish to limit future development. Furthermore, the court explicitly adopts the rule that a dominant estate owner has a right, not just a duty, to make reasonable improvements to the easement, settling a previously unaddressed issue in Virginia law and aligning it with other jurisdictions.
Unlock the full brief for Hayes v. Aquia Marina, Inc.