Swaim v. Simpson
120 N.C. App. 863, 463 S.E.2d 785, 1995 N.C. App. LEXIS 941 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When an express easement is created by a conveyance that is precise and unambiguous in its terms, the scope of the easement is controlled by that language, and a court may not expand its use in a way that increases the burden on the servient estate.
Facts:
- Plaintiff was granted a tract of land intended for residential use.
- The grant included an express easement over Lot Six, owned by the defendants.
- The deed described the easement as a 'right of way for ingress and egress.'
- A separate conveyance referenced in the deed further described the easement as 'providing access of ingress and egress to and from' the plaintiff's lots.
- Plaintiff sought to use the easement not only for access but also to locate, install, and maintain facilities for domestic utilities.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff initiated an action in the trial court, seeking a ruling that an easement for 'ingress and egress' also permitted the installation of utilities.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, expanding the scope of the easement to include the location, installation, and maintenance of domestic utilities.
- Defendants, the owners of the servient estate, appealed the trial court's order to the intermediate appellate court.
- Plaintiff is the appellee and defendants are the appellants in the present action.
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 express easement granted specifically for 'ingress and egress' implicitly include the right to install and maintain domestic utility lines?
Opinions:
Majority - Arnold, Chief Judge
No. An easement whose purpose is precisely defined as 'ingress and egress' is limited to access and does not include the right to install utilities. The scope of an express easement is controlled by the clear terms of the conveyance. Here, the deed unambiguously identified the easement's purpose as access. Expanding this use to include the installation and maintenance of utilities would impermissibly increase the burden on the servient estate. Citing Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Light Co., the court affirmed that when language is unambiguous, courts must give effect to its terms and cannot insert what the parties elected to omit.
Dissenting - Johnson, Judge
Yes. An easement providing access to a residential lot should be construed to include the right to install necessary utilities. Common sense dictates that an easement intended to serve a residence must include what is necessary to make that residence habitable, such as utilities. Citing Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Stephenson, the dissent argues that underground utility lines do not constitute an increased burden on the servient estate. Denying the right to install utilities would render a lot intended for residential use effectively uninhabitable.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle of strict construction for express easements, prioritizing the plain meaning of the text in a conveyance over implied or 'reasonable' uses. It establishes that an easement for 'ingress and egress' has a narrow legal meaning limited to access, which does not encompass the right to install utilities. This case serves as a critical warning to real estate practitioners to explicitly draft for all intended uses of an easement, particularly utilities, as courts will not infer such rights from a general access grant. The ruling narrows the potential for judicial expansion of easement rights where the original grant is textually precise.
