Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cxsea.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!cxsea!doc From: doc@cxsea.UUCP (Documentation ) Newsgroups: net.legal Subject: Re: Easements Message-ID: <518@cxsea.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Nov-85 13:54:55 EST Article-I.D.: cxsea.518 Posted: Fri Nov 8 13:54:55 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 11-Nov-85 05:44:57 EST References: <2862@brl-tgr.ARPA> Distribution: net Organization: Computer X Inc., Seattle, Washington. Lines: 42 > I recall reading references to "easements" in the past -- as far as I > recall, they involve rights of people to continue doing things as they > have been done in the past, despite the contrary wishes of new property > owners, specifically with regard to rights-of-way. Does the general > public have easement rights, or do they only apply to specific > individuals? I'd appreciate seeing comments from net people about easements > in general, and also if the concept applies in this case: > > There is an office building across the street... I don't think you have an easement here. To begin with, an easement exists only where it is specifically granted (where the "burdened" property owner specifically grants an easement across his land to the owner of the "benefitted" property), or implied by prior ownership (where the burdened property was owned by the benefitted property owner, then sold off, with an easement reserved to cross the burdened property). In this case, it does not appear that either situation is the case. If your building's owner used to own the buiding across the street, and tenants of your building were accustomed to crossing the other property (with or without the building on it), to the point that doing so amounted to a genuine benefit to the owner of your building, then you would arguably have an implied easement. A lot of big "ifs" in this. The other possibility is that the owner of the building across the street at one time granted an expressed easement to the owner of your building. This seems improbable. As a rule of thumb, a property owner has the right to fence his property against trespass at any time, which seems to be the situation here. Put yourself in their shoes: if children regularly cross your backyard on the way to school, to the point where they've cut a trail in your lawn worthy of a national park trail, and used it openly for 20 years when the previous owner lived there, should this prevent you as a new owner from fencing the back yard? Of course not. So it looks like you have to walk in the rain now and then. This is sometimes called a "wrong without a remedy", or, to use the latin, "damnum absque injuria" (to which many people respond "Damn 'em, let's sue 'em anyway!"). The modern rule simply recognizes, as my Torts professor used to say, "Into each life a little rain must fall (;-). Any other slime-balls...er..lawyers out there willing to comment on this one? Joel Gilman @Motorola/Computer X, Inc. Seattle