Penn Bowling Recreation Center v. Hot Shoppes, Inc.
179 F.2d 64 (1949)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Misuse of an easement by extending its benefit to non-dominant property does not automatically extinguish the easement. The right is not forfeited unless it is impossible to sever the increased burden of the unauthorized use from the authorized use.
Facts:
- In 1938, the Norment Estate conveyed land to Hot Shoppes, Inc., creating a sixteen-foot right-of-way easement for the benefit of the adjacent property retained by the Estate (the dominant tenement).
- In 1940, Penn Bowling Recreation Center, Inc. acquired a portion of this dominant tenement, thereby gaining the benefit of the easement.
- Penn Bowling later acquired additional, adjacent property that was not part of the original dominant tenement and was not entitled to use the easement.
- Penn Bowling constructed a single large building, housing a bowling alley and restaurant, that occupied part of the original dominant tenement as well as the adjacent non-dominant property.
- Penn Bowling used the right-of-way to service the entire building, including bringing supplies to and removing trash from portions of the building located on the non-dominant land.
- In response to this expanded use, Hot Shoppes erected a barrier of iron posts and concrete blocks, obstructing Penn Bowling's access to the right-of-way.
Procedural Posture:
- Penn Bowling filed a complaint in the district court to enjoin Hot Shoppes from maintaining a barrier within the right-of-way.
- Hot Shoppes filed an answer and counterclaim, seeking a permanent injunction against Penn Bowling's use and a declaratory judgment that the easement was forfeited.
- Both parties filed motions for a preliminary injunction.
- Hot Shoppes filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss Penn Bowling's complaint and declare the easement extinguished.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Hot Shoppes.
- Penn Bowling, as the appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals.
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 owner of a dominant tenement forfeit and extinguish an easement by abandonment when they misuse it by extending its benefit to an adjacent, non-dominant property?
Opinions:
Majority - McAllister, Circuit Judge.
No, misuse of an easement by extending its benefit to a non-dominant property does not automatically cause a forfeiture of the easement. The court reasoned that misuse or using an easement to an unauthorized extent is not sufficient to constitute abandonment or forfeiture. The drastic remedy of extinguishing the easement is only appropriate if it is impossible to sever the increased burden on the servient tenement, so as to preserve the dominant tenement's original rights. Here, it is conceivable that Penn Bowling could alter its building or operations to use the right-of-way to service only the dominant portion of its property. Therefore, the proper remedy is not to extinguish the easement, but to enjoin the unauthorized use until it can be severed from the authorized use.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle that courts will protect property rights and avoid forfeiture whenever possible. It establishes that the remedy for an overburdened easement is typically an injunction against the excessive use, rather than a complete extinguishment of the property right. This places a high burden on the servient tenement owner to prove that the authorized and unauthorized uses are impossible to separate before a court will consider termination. The ruling promotes practical solutions, such as altering buildings or operations, to preserve the original intent of the easement while preventing its abuse.
Unlock the full brief for Penn Bowling Recreation Center v. Hot Shoppes, Inc.