Scott v. Long Valley Farm Kentucky, Inc.
1991 Ky. App. LEXIS 20, 1991 WL 25383, 804 S.W.2d 15 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A permanent easement appurtenant, created by an express deed, cannot be extinguished by a court in equity on the grounds that it has become an economic burden on the servient estate or because the dominant estate has access to an alternative resource.
Facts:
- Since the 1920s, several parcels of land, including one later owned by the Scotts, held an express easement by deed for water from the Blue Springs Water System.
- The terms required each user to pay $12 annually and maintain their own water line, while the spring owner was to maintain the spring facilities.
- In 1963, Bobby and Wanda Scott acquired their parcel of land, which was the dominant estate benefitting from the easement.
- In 1973, city water service became available to the Scotts, but they continued using the spring water for lawn and garden purposes.
- In 1978, the owner of the Blue Springs system extinguished the easement rights for all other benefitted parcels, leaving only the Scotts' parcel.
- In 1986, Long Valley Farm Kentucky, Inc., a real estate development company, acquired the land containing the Blue Springs system, the servient estate.
- In 1987, the Scotts' water service was interrupted, and Long Valley demanded over $1,000 for a pump repair, threatening to permanently terminate the service if payment was not made.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1988, Bobby and Wanda Scott filed a suit for a declaration of rights against Long Valley Farm Kentucky, Inc., in the Fayette Circuit Court (trial court).
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- On March 1, 1990, the trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Long Valley, extinguishing the Scotts' easement rights.
- The Scotts (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court, where Long Valley was the appellee.
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 a court have the equitable power to extinguish a permanent easement appurtenant due to changed conditions, such as the servient estate's increased economic burden and the dominant estate's access to an alternative resource?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Miller
No. A court does not have the equitable power to extinguish a permanent easement appurtenant due to changed conditions. This case involves an easement appurtenant, which is a property right that inheres in the land and is distinct from a restrictive covenant. Restrictive covenants may be terminated due to changed neighborhood conditions, but an easement, as a vested property right, cannot. When Long Valley purchased its land, it took the property subject to the burden of the easement, just as the Scotts acquired the benefit of the easement with their land purchase. The court found no legal authority for judicial interference with these fixed rights based on equitable concerns. The economic burden on the servient estate (Long Valley) and the dominant estate's (the Scotts') limited use or access to an alternative like city water are irrelevant to the continued existence of a valid, permanent easement.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between property rights (easements) and contractual rights (restrictive covenants), establishing that easements are far more resilient to equitable challenges based on changed circumstances. It limits the discretion of courts to terminate vested property interests, even when enforcing them appears unfair or economically inefficient to the burdened party. This precedent strengthens the certainty and durability of express easements, ensuring that they cannot be easily dissolved due to inconvenience, making it critical for purchasers of land to conduct thorough due diligence regarding existing servitudes.
