Romanchuk v. Plotkin

Supreme Court of Minnesota
215 Minn. 156, 9 N.W.2d 421 (1943)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An implied easement is created when a property owner establishes an apparent, permanent, and reasonably necessary quasi-easement on one part of their property for the benefit of another, and the unity of title is subsequently severed. In a lien theory jurisdiction, the severance of title occurs at the time of mortgage foreclosure, not at the initial granting of the mortgage.

Facts:

In 1915, defendants acquired a property with two houses serviced by a common sewer drain.
On February 23, 1921, defendants acquired the adjacent property, now owned by plaintiffs, which lacked plumbing.
Two days later, on February 25, 1921, defendants executed a mortgage on the newly acquired property to Margaret Roggeman.
In 1922, defendants installed plumbing in the mortgaged property and connected it to the common sewer drain running across their original property.
In July 1936, Margaret Roggeman acquired title to the property through foreclosure of the mortgage.
On August 8, 1938, plaintiffs purchased the property from Roggeman.
On October 22, 1941, defendant Samuel Plotkin notified plaintiffs that he intended to sever their sewer connection.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiffs Romanchuk sued defendants Plotkin in the trial court, seeking an injunction to prevent the disconnection of a sewer line and to compel the removal of an encroaching fence.
The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling they had an easement for the sewer and that the fence encroached on their land.
The trial court ordered a judgment enjoining the defendants from interfering with the sewer and requiring them to move the fence.
Defendants, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decision 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 an implied easement for a sewer drain exist in favor of a property when the drain was installed by a common owner after a mortgage was placed on the property but before the mortgage was foreclosed, thereby severing title?

Opinions:

Majority - Peterson, Justice.

Yes, an implied easement for the sewer drain was created. In a lien theory state like Minnesota, severance of title occurs upon mortgage foreclosure, not upon the execution of the mortgage. Because the sewer connection was installed before the foreclosure, the use was in place at the time of severance. This use was apparent, permanent, and reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the property, thus creating an implied easement that passed to the purchaser at the foreclosure sale and subsequently to the plaintiffs. The court reasoned that 'apparent' does not mean visible, but rather discoverable through a careful inspection by a person familiar with the subject, such as a plumber observing the interior plumbing fixtures. Furthermore, 'necessary' means reasonably necessary or convenient for the beneficial use of the property, not absolutely indispensable. The facts that plumbing fixtures were visible inside the house and that a sewer is highly convenient for a dwelling satisfied these requirements.

Analysis:

This case clarifies the creation of implied easements in the context of mortgages within a lien theory jurisdiction. By holding that severance of title occurs at foreclosure, the court allows for uses established during the mortgage period to create permanent property rights. This decision adopts a modern, flexible interpretation of the requirements for an implied easement, particularly defining 'apparent' as discoverable rather than strictly visible and 'necessary' as reasonably convenient rather than indispensable. This approach protects the expectations of purchasers at foreclosure sales and subsequent grantees who rely on existing, functional uses of the property.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Romanchuk v. Plotkin (1943)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"