Thomson v. Wade
516 N.Y.S.2d 614, 69 N.Y.2d 570, 509 N.E.2d 309 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A reservation or exception in a deed cannot create a valid easement or other property interest in favor of a third party who is a 'stranger to the deed' (i.e., not a grantor or grantee in the transaction).
Facts:
- Edward John Noble owned two adjoining parcels of land: a riverfront parcel known as the 'annex' and an unimproved inland parcel that bordered a public road.
- Noble historically used a path across the inland parcel to access the public road from the annex parcel.
- In 1945, Noble conveyed the annex parcel to the predecessor of the plaintiff, Estate of A. Graham Thomson, without expressly granting an easement over the inland parcel.
- Subsequently, Noble conveyed the inland parcel to the predecessor of the defendant, Judith Wade.
- The deed for the inland parcel contained a clause where Noble "excepted and reserved" a right-of-way across it for both himself personally and for the owner of the annex parcel.
- In 1954, Thomson purchased the annex parcel and, along with the public, continued to use the right-of-way across the inland parcel.
- In 1978, Thomson built a 50-room motel on the annex parcel, prompting Wade to attempt to block the increased use of the right-of-way.
- Thomson then acquired a quitclaim deed from Noble's successor for the personal right-of-way Noble had reserved for himself.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, executrix of the estate of A. Graham Thomson, filed a declaratory judgment action in a New York trial court against the defendant, Judith Wade.
- The case was appealed to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, which is an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division concluded that no express easement was created in favor of the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff appealed the decision of the Appellate Division to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest 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 a reservation in a deed that purports to create a right-of-way for a third party, who is a stranger to that deed, create a valid and enforceable easement in favor of that third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a reservation in a deed in favor of a third party does not create a valid easement for that party. The court reaffirms the long-accepted New York rule that a grantor cannot create a property interest in a deed for a 'stranger to the deed.' When Noble conveyed the inland parcel, he had already sold the annex parcel, making its owner a third-party stranger to the second transaction. Therefore, the attempt to reserve an easement for the annex parcel's owner was ineffective. The court declined to adopt the minority view, which would uphold such a reservation if it reflected the grantor's clear intent, citing the overriding public policy in favor of certainty in real property titles. Adherence to established precedent is paramount in property law, as settled rules are relied upon by the public. Additionally, the personal right-of-way reserved by Noble (an easement in gross) was not shown to be commercial in nature and thus could not be transferred to the plaintiff.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies New York's adherence to the traditional common law 'stranger to the deed' rule, prioritizing certainty and stability in property law over a more flexible, intent-based approach followed by a minority of jurisdictions. The ruling serves as a clear warning to legal practitioners that creating an easement for a third party requires a direct conveyance (i.e., a separate deed granting the easement to that third party). It reinforces that courts are reluctant to overturn long-standing property rules, even if they may occasionally frustrate a grantor's original intent, because of the reliance interests and the need to avoid litigation over land titles.
Unlock the full brief for Thomson v. Wade