Case Brief: Brown v. Voss, 105 Wn.2d 366

	studentJD
	Students Helping Students	Currently Briefing & Updating

Student Case Briefs, Outlines, Notes and Sample Tests Terms & Conditions
© 2010 No content replication for monetary use of any kind is allowed without express written permission

Back To Property Briefs

Brown v. Voss, 105 Wn.2d 366

Supreme Court of Washington

1986

Chapter	19	Title	Express Easements
Page	365	Topic	Interpretation and Extent
Quick Notes	A servient estate owner does not want to allow the dominant estate owner to use the easement for newly acquired lot of the dominant estate owner which is adjacent to their land. The court says it is a misuse, but it is really only technical.
Book Name	Fundamentals of Modern Property Law: Rabin; Kwall, Kwall. ISBN: 978-1-59941-053-1.

Issue

o The question posed is to what extent, if any, the holder of a private road easement can traverse the servient estate [burdened estate] to reach not only the original dominant estate [benefited estate], but a subsequently acquired parcel when those two combined parcels are used in such a way that there is no increase in the burden on the servient estate. Supreme Court Agreed withTrial Courts Findings

Procedure
Trial	o Each party was awarded $1. o Award against the Pl - was for a slight trespass. o The injunction was denied to the Df of the servient [burdened] estate. o The Pl was granted the right to use the easement for access to parcels B and C as long as plaintiffs properties (B and C) are developed and used solely for the purpose of a single family residence."
Appellant	o Reversed. o Trial Courts decision was based upon untenable grounds. o Order enjoining the use of the easement across parcel A to gain access to a residence any part of which is located on parcel C, or to further the construction of any residence on parcels B or C if the construction activities would require entry onto parcel C
Supreme	o Reversed Court of Appeals and reinstated judgment of the trial court. o See Discussion.

Fee Party
Party	o Voss (Servient Estate), Defendants
Issue	o The Pl have no such easement rights in connection with their ownership of parcel C, which was not part of the original dominant estate in the 1952 grant.
Evidence	o Grant of 1952.

Easement Party
Party	o Browns (Dominant Estate), Plaintiffs
Issue	o Plaintiffs contend that extension of the use of the easement for the benefit of nondominant property does not constitute a misuse of the easement. o There is no evidence of an increase in the burden on the servient estate.
Evidence	o Trial Court found there was no misuse.

Facts

Discussion

Reasoning

Rules

Pl Browns (Dominant Estate)

Df Voss (Servient Estate)

Description

o There are three parcels of land: A, B, and C.

o A is the servient estate.

o B is the dominant estate.

o The predessors in title of parcel A granted to the predecessor of parcel B a private road easement across A for ingress to and egress from parcel B.

o The Plaintiffs own B.

o The Defendants own A.

o The Plaintiffs bought C for the purposes to build a single family residence that straddles both B and C.

o The Pl began clearing land in November 1977.

o The Df sought to bar the Pl - in April of 1979, some 17 months later after the Pl spent $11,000.

Obstructed Easement

o Defendants placed logs, a concrete sump and a chain link fence within the easement.

Pl Sued/Injunction

o Plaintiffs sued for removal of the obstructions, an injunction against defendant's interference with their use of the easement and damages.

Df - Counterclaimed

o Defendants counterclaimed for damages and an injunction against plaintiffs using the easement other than for parcel B.

See Procedural History

Easement In This Case

o The easement in this case was created by express grant.

Determining the Terms

o The extent of the right acquired is to be determined from the terms of the grant properly construed to give effect to the intention of the parties.

Both Parties Agree that

o Both plaintiffs and defendants agree that the 1952 grant created an easement appurtenant to parcel B as the dominant estate.

o Thus, plaintiffs, as owners of the dominant estate, acquired rights in the use of the easement for ingress to and egress from parcel B.

Fee Party Issue/Argument

o The Pl have no such easement rights in connection with their ownership of parcel C, which was not part of the original dominant estate in the 1952 grant.

Easement Appurtenant Rule

o As a general rule, an easement appurtenant to one parcel of land may not be extended by the owner of the dominant estate to other parcels owned by him, whether adjoining or distinct tracts, to which the easement is not appurtenant.

Easement Party Issue/Argument

o Plaintiffs contend that extension of the use of the easement for the benefit of nondominant property does not constitute a misuse of the easement.

o There is no evidence of an increase in the burden on the servient estate.

Court

o We do not agree

Appurtenant Extension Misuse Rule

o If an easement is appurtenant to a particular parcel of land, any extension thereof to other parcels is a misuse of the easement.

o "[I]n this context this classic rule of property law is directed to the rights of the respective parties rather than the actual burden on the servitude."

Courts Misuse Reasoning

o Under the express language of the 1952 grant, plaintiffs only have rights in the use of the easement for the benefit of parcel B.

o Although, as plaintiffs contend, their planned use of the easement to gain access to a single family residence located partially on parcel B and partially on parcel C is perhaps no more than technical misuse of the easement, we conclude that it is misuse nonetheless.

Courts Df not entitled to injunctive relief

Fundament Principles for an Injunction

(1) The proceeding is equitable and addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.

(2) The trial court is vested with a broad discretionary power to shape and fashion injunctive relief to fit the particular facts, circumstances, and equities of the case before it.

a. Appellate courts give great weight to the trial court's exercise of that discretion.

(3) One of the essential criteria for injunctive relief is actual and substantial injury sustained by the person seeking the injunction

a. Pl - obstruction to the easement.

b. Df - Technical, but not actual and substantial misuse.

Supreme Court Agreed withTrial Courts Findings

o That plaintiffs have acted reasonably in the development of their property,

o There is and was no damage to the defendants from plaintiffs' use of the easement

o There was no increase in the volume of travel on the easement,

o There was no increase in the burden on the servient estate,

o The defendants sat by for more than a year while plaintiffs expended more than $ 11,000 on their project

o The defendants' counterclaim was an effort to gain "leverage" against plaintiffs' claim.

o The court found from the evidence that plaintiffs would suffer considerable hardship if the injunction were granted whereas no appreciable hardship or damages would flow to defendants from its denial.

o The court limited plaintiffs' use of the combined parcels solely to the same purpose for which the original parcel was used -- i.e., for a single family residence.

o Trial court acted within its discretion.

Dissent

o As conceded by the majority, any extension of the use of an easement to benefit a nondominant estate constitutes a misuse of the easement.

o Misuse of an easement is a trespass.

o The Browns' use of the easement to benefit parcel C, especially if they build their home as planned, would involve a continuing trespass for which damages would be difficult to measure.

o Injunctive relief is the appropriate remedy under these circumstances.

If the Browns desire access to their landlocked parcel they have the benefit of the statutory procedure for condemnation of a private way of necessity.