Union National Bank v. Nesmith
130 N. E. 251, 1921 Mass. LEXIS 956, 238 Mass. 247 (1921)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An easement of way through a building, as distinct from an easement over the land itself, is limited by the existence of the structure. The easement is extinguished when the building on the servient estate is destroyed, even if the destruction is an intentional act by the servient owner.
Facts:
- In approximately 1852, John and Thomas Nesmith, who owned adjoining lots, simultaneously erected buildings on their respective properties.
- The buildings were constructed with a common entrance from the street, and common stairways and landing places leading to the upper stories.
- Half of the common entrance, stairways, and landings are located on each side of the property line.
- For decades, the common areas have been used by the occupants of both buildings and constitute the only means of access to the upper stories of the respondents' building and the third floor of the petitioner's building.
- The petitioner, who is the successor in title to Thomas Nesmith, now proposes to tear down its building and erect a new one.
- The petitioner's plan for the new building does not provide for the common entrance, stairways, and landing places.
Procedural Posture:
- The petitioner initiated proceedings in the Land Court for registration of title to its land.
- The respondents claimed a prescriptive easement of way through the petitioner's building that would survive the building's destruction.
- The Land Court judge found that the respondents had acquired a prescriptive easement to use the common areas.
- The judge ruled that this easement was limited to the joint life of the respective buildings and would terminate upon the destruction of either building.
- The respondents filed an exception to the judge's ruling, bringing the case before the appellate 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 prescriptive easement of way through a building terminate when the owner of the servient estate intentionally destroys the building?
Opinions:
Majority - Jenney, J.
Yes, a prescriptive easement of way through a building terminates when the owner of the servient estate intentionally destroys the building. An easement of way through a structure is inherently limited by the existence of that structure, as it is a right in the building itself, not in the underlying land. The court reasoned that the owner of the servient estate is not obligated to replace a building destroyed by accident (fire, tornado, etc.), and this principle extends to intentional destruction. To hold otherwise would effectively impose a restriction on the servient owner's use of their land, preventing them from making changes and forcing them to maintain a building indefinitely, which was not the intent of the parties creating the easement. The right is tied to the building, and when the building ceases to exist, the right is extinguished as there is nothing upon which it can be exercised.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the limited nature of easements that are appurtenant to a specific structure rather than the land itself. It establishes that such easements are not perpetual and do not encumber the underlying land indefinitely. By allowing a servient landowner to terminate a building-specific easement through intentional demolition, the court prioritizes the owner's right to develop and change the use of their property over the easement holder's interest in maintaining the status quo. This precedent limits the power of prescriptive easements tied to buildings and provides servient estate owners with greater flexibility in managing their property.
