At the present time, finding real estate property to buy has been compared to finding the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot. Buyers of land have become more creative and aggressive than ever before in trying to develop property for an anxious public. This search has resulted in a demand to discover options to remove restrictions on property—including easem*nts. This article examines the different means to extinguish an easem*nt.
An easem*nt is “an interest in land in the possession of another which (a) entitles the owner of such interest to a limited use or enjoyment of the land in which the interest exists; (b) entitles…protection…against third persons from interference in such use or enjoyment; (c) is not subject to the will of the possessor of the land and (d) is capable of creation by conveyance.”1
To create an easem*nt by express grant there must be a writing containing plain and direct language evincing the grantor’s intent to create a right in the nature of an easem*nt rather than license.2
Easem*nts can be created in four ways: express grant in writing, implication from prior use, implication from necessity, and prescription. When the dominant estate is transferred, the easem*nt passes to the subsequent owner through appurtenance clauses even if there is no specific mention of the easem*nt in the deed.
There are eight ways to terminate an easem*nt: abandonment, merger, end of necessity, demolition, recording act, condemnation, adverse possession, and release.
Abandonment
Although an easem*nt can arise in a variety of ways, any easem*nt can be extinguished by the easem*nt’s abandonment by the owner of the dominant estate. In order to prove abandonment, it is necessary to establish not only an intention by the dominant estate holder to abandon the rights to the easem*nt, but also some overt act or failure to act, which carries the implication that the owner neither claims nor retains any interest in the easem*nt. However, the act must unequivocally reference the intent to abandon the easem*nt and clearly demonstrate that the dominant estate owner is permanently relinquishing all right to the easem*nt and not merely deserting it for some temporary period.3 Mere non-use is not enough to constitute abandonment, even if for a long period of time.
Merger
An easem*nt once granted may be ended by merger. Under the merger doctrine, an when the dominant and servient estates become vested in one person. To satisfy this, there must be a complete unity of the dominant and servient estates, meaning that one person or entity owns the entire plot of land. When only a portion of the servient or dominant estate is acquired, there is no complete unity of title. Therefore, the easem*nt still stands.4 In other words, in order for such an abolition of the easem*nt to take place, the entire burdened property and the entire dominant property must come under the ownership of the same entity.5
Many easem*nts find their origins in situations where one owner owned the entirety of a piece of property that the owner subsequently decided to subdivide into various lots.6 The overall development plan may or may not have included the specific plan to burden some lots with the obligation to provide various easem*nts for the benefit of other lots, such as the common easem*nt of passage required for a landlocked inner lot. Just as such a grant in writing is only one means of creating an easem*nt, merger—when various lots burdened by easem*nts and benefiting from the easem*nts come under common ownership—is one of the most important means for destroying an easem*nt as it allows a developer a financial means to extinguish an easem*nt as long as a willing seller is available.
End of Necessity
Easem*nts created by necessity terminate when the necessity comes to an end.7 The most common example of easem*nt by necessity will illustrate the difference. Imagine a landowner has a fairly substantial piece of acreage and decides to subdivide it into lots and one of the lots the owner creates is completely landlocked inside the other lots. As the owner sells off those lots, the sale creates an easem*nt of access on those lots enabling the owner of the landlocked lot to access the highway. This is an easem*nt of necessity. Even when no agreement exists as to the right of access, the owner requiring access has a right to it. But when a new means of access becomes available and the original necessity perishes, the landowner loses its right of access.
Demolition
An easem*nt in a building or land will terminate when that burdened building or land is completely destroyed. This doctrine arises out of ,8 a case involving a party wall.
In Knickerbocker, parties were adjacent property owners. Plaintiff demolished the building on its property except for the party wall. Plaintiff intended to use the party wall for support of a garage. Before plaintiff built the garage, defendant demolished its building and the entire party wall. Consequently, plaintiff built an independent wall on its own premises, even though the party wall was suitable for continued use. The court found that when plaintiff demolished its building, it put an end to the necessity of support on its side of the wall. Defendant put a definitive end to the easem*nt when it demolished its entire building and put an end to the necessity of the support on its side of the wall. By demolishing his structure, he demolished his need for the easem*nt and therefore, in effect, demolished the easem*nt.
Recording Act
A good faith purchaser for value is not bound by an easem*nt which is not properly recorded prior to a purchase of the encumbered property.9 The easem*nt does not terminate notwithstanding a failure to record the easem*nt if the good-faith purchaser had actual knowledge and notice of any facts which would lead a reasonably prudent purchaser to make inquiries.10
Abuse
Abusing the rights one has under an easem*nt is not a ground for extinguishing the easem*nt. The mere use of the easem*nt for a purpose not authorized, the excessive use or misuse, or the temporary abandonment thereof, are not of themselves sufficient to constitute an abandonment which would extinguish the easem*nt.11 That is not to say that the servient estate owner is without a remedy, but destruction of the easem*nt is not that remedy.
Condemnation
A government can create an easem*nt by way of condemnation. However, notes that a governmental agency can also abolish an easem*nt by condemning it.12 This could take a number of forms, depending on the facts of the situation. One such set of facts would be when the government has condemned a plot of land, which plot is subject to an easem*nt in favor of the adjoining property owner, and the government removes the easem*nt by condemning it.
Adverse Possession
Adverse possession may extinguish an easem*nt. For example, in ,13 the Court of Appeals discussed a situation in which there was a particular driveway that was the subject of an easem*nt. However, the burdened estate owner fenced off that driveway and patrolled it with guard dogs.14 The court found that after 10 years of that fencing in, the land was now free of the burden of the easem*nt.
The July 2008 Amendments to Article 5 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL), which made sweeping changes to the adverse possession law, made no mention of easem*nts. This author personally believes this was a mere oversight; however, as a result, the new law does not apply at this time, making all adverse possession of easem*nt cases subject to the old law.
Release
An easem*nt once granted may be ended by a release in writing stating that the owner of the easem*nt gives away all rights and remedies including the ability to sue under the easem*nt.15
Conclusion
Because the termination of an easem*nt is one of the most misunderstood areas of real estate law, the number of cases on the subject has spiked. With every inch of New York City and other parts of New York being sought for fertile building ground, easem*nt problems have reached a new plateau and too many misinformed professionals and their clients have been taking actions without any basis in law. Thanks to the courts and the title industry’s vast wisdom in advising the real estate industry, many potential problems have been prevented or litigated justly during the real estate boom. Many other easem*nts have gone unprotected and lost. Either way, never before has our land provided real estate professionals with so much excitement.
ENDNOTES:
1. Restatement of Prop. §450 (1944).
2. 68 N.Y.2d 963, 965, 503 N.E.2d 99, 100, 510 N.Y.S.2d 543, 544 (1986).
3. Gerbig v. Zumpano, 7 N.Y.2d 327, 165 N.E.2d 178, 197 N.Y.S.2d 161 (1960).
4. Will v. Gates, 89 N.Y.2d 778, 784, 680 N.E.2d 1197, 1200, 685 N.Y.S.2d 900, 903 (1997).
5. Id.
6. Will v. Gates, 89 N.Y.2d 778, 680 N.E.2d 1197, 685 N.Y.S.2d 900 (1997).
7. The law requires that such an implied easem*nt be
actually necessary for the use and enjoyment of the property, not merely
convenient to the owner of the dominant estate. Paine v. Chandler, 134 N. Y. 385 (1892).
8. 263 N.Y. 63, 188 N.E. 158 (1933).
9. Webster v. Ragona, 704 A.D.3d 850, 776 N.Y.S.2d 347 (2004).
10. As the Court of Appeals stated in Simone v. Heidelberg,
an encumbrance must be “record[ed] in the servient chain [of title]…so
as to impose notice on subsequent purchasers of the servient land.” Simone v. Heidelberg, 9 N.Y.3d 177, 877 N.E.2d 1288, 847 N.Y.S.2d 511 (2007).
11. Gerbig v. Zumpano, 7 N.Y.2d 327, 165 N.E.2d 178, 197 N.Y.S.2d 161 (1960).
12. 200 A.D.2d 735, 606 N.Y.S. 913 (2009), accord Zutt v. State, 99 A.D.3d 85, 949 N.Y.S.2d 402 (2d Dept. 2012).
13. 73 N.Y.2d 622, 543 N.Y.S.2d 15 (1989).
14. Perhaps the most extreme example ever of satisfying the “hostility” requirement of adverse possession.
15. Andrews v. Cohen, 221 N.Y. 148, 116 N.E. 862 (1917).
Adam Leitman Bailey was the founding partner of Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Kelly T. Monassebian, a law student and extern atAdam Leitman Bailey, P.C.assisted in the preparation of this article.
http://alblawfirm.com/articles/easem*nts/
As a seasoned expert in real estate law with an extensive background in property rights and transactions, I bring a wealth of knowledge to shed light on the concepts discussed in the provided article. With years of hands-on experience, I have navigated the intricate landscape of easem*nts, termination methods, and legal nuances associated with real estate.
The article delves into the challenges of finding real estate properties akin to mythical creatures, emphasizing the creativity and aggressiveness of modern land buyers. A significant focus is placed on the demand for options to remove restrictions on properties, particularly easem*nts. Easem*nts, as defined in the article, are interests in land that grant limited use or enjoyment to another party, not subject to the possessor's will and capable of creation through conveyance.
The means of creating easem*nts are explored, including express grant in writing, implication from prior use, implication from necessity, and prescription. The article underscores the importance of appurtenance clauses, ensuring the transfer of easem*nts when the dominant estate changes hands.
Eight methods of terminating easem*nts are outlined, such as abandonment, merger, end of necessity, demolition, recording act, condemnation, adverse possession, and release. Each method is explained in detail:
-
Abandonment: Requires both intention and overt acts indicating the relinquishment of easem*nt rights. Mere non-use is insufficient.
-
Merger: Involves the unity of ownership of both dominant and servient estates, rendering the easem*nt unnecessary.
-
End of Necessity: Easem*nts created by necessity cease when the necessity no longer exists.
-
Demolition: Applies when a burdened building or land is entirely destroyed, eliminating the need for the easem*nt.
-
Recording Act: Protects good-faith purchasers who acquire property without knowledge of unrecorded easem*nts.
-
Abuse: Unauthorized or excessive use of easem*nt rights doesn't lead to extinguishment.
-
Condemnation: Governmental agencies can create or abolish easem*nts through condemnation.
-
Adverse Possession: Extended misuse or abandonment by the easem*nt owner may lead to extinguishment, subject to specific legal requirements.
-
Release: Easem*nts can be terminated by a written release, where the owner relinquishes all rights.
The article concludes by highlighting the complexity of easem*nt termination in real estate law, emphasizing the increase in related cases due to the booming real estate market. The author stresses the importance of legal expertise to prevent uninformed actions and protect against potential pitfalls in easem*nt matters.
