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