Martin v. Music
254 S.W.2d 701, 1953 Ky. LEXIS 604 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An easement is presumed to be appurtenant to the land, rather than a personal right (in gross), when it can be fairly construed as benefiting a particular parcel of land. The owners of a divided dominant estate may each enjoy the easement so long as it does not place an additional or undue burden upon the servient estate.
Facts:
- Marvin Music owned a block of eight lots.
- Fred Martin owned property across an alley and desired to construct a sewer line from his property across Music's lots to a river.
- On December 3, 1949, Music and Martin executed a written agreement granting Martin the right to build and maintain the sewer line across Music's land.
- In consideration, the agreement granted Music the right to 'place an intake connection in said line for use of said party at a point to be designated by him.'
- Martin constructed the sewer line across the lots.
- After construction, Music sold six of the eight lots to a third party, who in turn sold three lots each to Wells and Allen.
- Wells and Allen each began constructing a dwelling house on their respective lots and made preparations to connect to Martin's sewer line via the single intake.
Procedural Posture:
- Fred Martin initiated an action for a declaration of rights in the trial court.
- The trial court adjudged that Music, Wells, and Allen each had the right to connect with the sewer through the one intake connection.
- Martin, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to this 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 right to an intake connection in a sewer line easement run with the land to subsequent owners of subdivided portions of the dominant estate, or is it a personal right limited to the original landowner?
Opinions:
Majority - Cullen, Commissioner
Yes, the right to an intake connection runs with the land to subsequent owners. An easement is appurtenant when it is to be exercised in connection with the occupancy of particular land, and it may be enjoyed by the owners of subdivided portions of the dominant estate, provided this use does not unduly burden the servient estate. The court reasoned that easements in gross are disfavored, and this easement was clearly connected to the land it crossed, not to Music personally. The controlling question then becomes whether the proposed use by Wells and Allen creates an undue burden. The original agreement did not limit the type of use or the potential burden; Music could have built a hotel or apartment building on the lots and connected to the single intake. Since the burden of two or three single-family homes is not greater than the potential burden contemplated by the plain language of the agreement, the use by Wells and Allen is permissible.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strong judicial preference for construing easements as appurtenant rather than in gross, ensuring that rights which benefit a parcel of land pass with the title to that land. It further clarifies that upon subdivision of the dominant estate, the easement becomes apportioned among the new parcels, with the critical limitation being that the collective use by the new owners cannot increase the burden on the servient estate beyond what was originally contemplated. The decision serves as a significant lesson in drafting, highlighting that any intended limitations on the burden or use of an easement must be explicitly stated in the granting instrument.
Unlock the full brief for Martin v. Music