United States v. Blackman
613 S.E.2d 442 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Virginia law as it existed in 1973, a negative easement in gross created for the purpose of land conservation and historic preservation was a valid and enforceable interest in land, supported by statutory modifications to the common law and the Commonwealth's public policy.
Facts:
- In the early 1970s, the Commonwealth of Virginia planned to construct a prison in the historic Green Springs area of Louisa County.
- Following local opposition, the governor of Virginia announced the state would not build the prison if the area's historic character could be preserved.
- In response, local citizens formed Historic Green Springs, Inc. (HGSI), a non-profit organization, to obtain preservation easements from landowners.
- On March 19, 1973, D.L. Atkins and Frances Atkins granted an assignable 'easement in gross' to HGSI, restricting the use of their property, Eastern View Farm, to preserve its historic character.
- The Atkins' grant was made in consideration of similar grants to HGSI by other landowners in the district.
- In 1978, HGSI conveyed its entire portfolio of easements, including the one on Eastern View Farm, to the United States. The National Park Service (NPS) began administering the easements.
- On July 1, 2002, Peter F. Blackman purchased Eastern View Farm.
- Blackman wished to renovate the property's manor house in a manner that the NPS would not approve, and he began renovations without NPS approval.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a complaint against Peter F. Blackman in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia to enforce the deed of easement.
- The district court issued a temporary restraining order, preventing Blackman from continuing renovation work without approval from the National Park Service.
- In his defense, Blackman argued that the original 1973 deed of easement was invalid under Virginia law.
- Finding no direct precedent from the state's highest court, the U.S. District Court certified a question of law to the Supreme Court of Virginia to determine the validity of the easement under 1973 state law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was a negative easement in gross, created for the purposes of land conservation and historic preservation, a valid and enforceable interest in real property under Virginia law in 1973?
Opinions:
Majority - Koontz, Justice
Yes. A negative easement in gross for conservation and historic preservation was a valid interest in land under Virginia law in 1973. Although traditional common law disfavored easements in gross and limited negative easements to a few specific types, Virginia law had evolved significantly by 1973. Virginia Code § 55-6, amended in 1962, abrogated the common law by explicitly recognizing 'easements in gross' as transferable interests in real estate without distinguishing between affirmative and negative types. Furthermore, the Commonwealth's public policy, as expressed in the 1966 Open-Space Land Act and Article XI of the 1970 Virginia Constitution, strongly favored the preservation of historic sites. The court reasoned that the subsequent 1988 Virginia Conservation Easement Act (VCEA) did not create a new right, but rather codified and consolidated existing law to facilitate the use of such easements, particularly by providing a framework for tax benefits. Therefore, the easement granted by the Atkinses was not of a 'novel character' prohibited by law but was consistent with Virginia's statutory and constitutional framework at the time.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for clarifying that conservation easements in Virginia were valid even before the specific enactment of the Virginia Conservation Easement Act in 1988. By looking to broader statutory changes and public policy expressed in the state constitution, the court affirmed the enforceability of numerous pre-1988 easements that protect thousands of acres of historic and natural land. This ruling prevents landowners from invalidating older preservation agreements by arguing they were unrecognized 'novel' interests at common law. The case establishes that legislative and constitutional expressions of public policy can effectively modernize common law property doctrines over time.
