Millbrook Hunt, Inc. v. Smith
No reporter information provided (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agreement granting a right to use land for a specific purpose for a definite and substantial period, which does not allow the landowner to completely exclude the user, creates an easement rather than a revocable license, regardless of the label used by the parties.
Facts:
- In 1987, Millbrook Hunt, Inc. (the Hunt) entered into a 'Lease and Easement Agreement' with the predecessor-in-title to Edgar O. Smith.
- The agreement granted the Hunt the right to use a 285-acre parcel of land for fox hunting for a term of 75 years.
- The agreement allowed the landowner to develop the land and relocate the Hunt's trails to accommodate such improvements, but not to completely exclude the Hunt.
- Edgar O. Smith, who objected to hunting, subsequently purchased the 285-acre parcel.
- Smith began transforming the property into a wildlife habitat and nature preserve.
- In 1995, Smith ejected members of the Hunt from the property while they were performing trail maintenance.
Procedural Posture:
- Millbrook Hunt, Inc. sued Edgar O. Smith in the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (a trial court), seeking a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction.
- Smith filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the Hunt's complaint.
- The Hunt filed a cross motion to dismiss Smith's affirmative defenses and counterclaims.
- The trial court denied Smith's motion and granted the Hunt's cross motion.
- The trial court subsequently entered an interlocutory judgment declaring that the Hunt has an easement over Smith's property.
- Smith, as the appellant, appealed both the order and the interlocutory judgment to the 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:
Does an agreement that grants an organization the right to use land for fox hunting for a definite term of 75 years create an easement, even if the landowner retains the right to develop the land and relocate the organization's trails?
Opinions:
Majority - Memorandum Opinion (Santucci, J.P., Joy, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur)
Yes. An agreement that grants the right to use land for a definite and substantial term creates an easement, not a revocable license. The court determines the character of an interest by its substance, not the label given by the parties. An easement is an interest in land for a definite period, whereas a license is a mere personal privilege that is revocable. Here, the agreement was for a definite term of 75 years, a key characteristic of an easement. Although the landowner, Smith, retained the right to develop the land and relocate the Hunt's trails, the agreement did not give him the right to completely exclude the Hunt from the property. This inability to fully revoke access, combined with the lengthy, definite term, demonstrates the parties' intent to create a permanent right, which constitutes an easement.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that courts look to the substance of an agreement over its form when distinguishing between an easement and a license. It establishes that a landowner's retention of development rights, including the right to relocate a trail or use, does not automatically convert an easement into a revocable license, so long as the landowner cannot completely extinguish the user's rights. This precedent is significant for property law as it solidifies that the key distinguishing factors are the duration of the right and the degree of the landowner's control over access. Future cases involving long-term land use agreements will likely be analyzed based on whether the right is for a definite term and whether the landowner's revocation power is absolute.
Unlock the full brief for Millbrook Hunt, Inc. v. Smith