Blog

Sally owned a large lot located on a busy city street.  She operated a steak restaurant in a building on the west half of the lot; the east half was undeveloped.  Sally decided to sell the east half but wanted to avoid competition with her restaurant.  Accordingly, when Sally sold the east half to Boyd, she inserted the following language in the deed with Boyd’s consent:  “The parties wish to ensure that the property will not be used for a purpose that competes with seller’s existing restaurant on adjacent land.  Accordingly, buyer covenants that a restaurant will never be operated on the property.”  Boyd promptly recorded his deed.  He then entered into a written lease whereby he leased his new property to the Red Ox Steak Company (“Red Ox”), a national steak restaurant chain, for a 75-year term.  Red Ox established a steak restaurant on the land.  Sally sued Red Ox for damages on the theory that the restriction was a real covenant.   Who will win the lawsuit?

A retiree purchased a rustic cabin on a small plot of land near the center of a landowner’s large parcel of land. The deed to the land, which the landowner delivered to the retiree for fair consideration, did not specifically grant an easement over the landowner’s property to reach the public highway bordering her land. There were two means of access to the cabin from the public roads: a driveway from the county road on the south, and a private road from the highway on the east. The landowner told the retiree that he could use the private road from the highway. Twice during his first two years at the cabin, the retiree took the driveway from the county road instead; at all other times he used the private road. At the end of his second year at the cabin, the retiree began reading tarot cards to supplement his retirement income. He had a steady stream of clients coming to his home at all hours of the day and night. Most of the clients came in on the driveway from the county road, which ran close to the landowner’s home. The landowner objected, and told the retiree that neither he nor his clients had any right to use that driveway and that they must use the private road from the highway. The retiree refused, and he and his clients continued to use the driveway from the county road for three years. Finally, the landowner began blocking off the driveway from the county road. The retiree brought suit to enjoin this practice. The prescriptive period in this jurisdiction is five years. Who will most likely prevail?

For many years, a landowner owned a parcel of land bordered on the west by a public road, and his neighbor owned a parcel of land located immediately to the east of that parcel. The neighbor had an easement to cross the west parcel to enter the public road bordering it. Because the neighbor’s east parcel is surrounded by swampland on the north, south, and east, the only route of ingress to and egress from that parcel over dry land passed through the west parcel. Subsequently, the neighbor sold the east parcel to the landowner, who proceeded to use both lots as a common tract. Last year, the landowner sold the east parcel to his friend. Does the friend have an easement over the landowner’s west parcel? Responses

Connie owned a 10-acre parcel of forest land; she lived in a house located on the west half of the property.  A highway adjoined the east side of her land.  Connie reached her house by leaving the highway and driving west across her land on a gravel road.  A thin black telephone line ran from a pole near the highway, west through the trees on Connie’s land, and connected to the telephone system in her house.  The line was mostly concealed in the tree foliage but could be seen in a diligent inspection of the land.  A cell phone tower was installed near the house five years ago, and since then the local cell phone service has been far more reliable and better in quality than the traditional landline service.  For this reason, over the last five years, Connie always made and received calls on her cell phone when she was at home; she never used the landline during that period.  Last month, Connie sold the west half of her parcel to Ted.  The deed which Connie delivered granted an express easement to Ted for access along the gravel road, but had no provision concerning the telephone line.  Yesterday Connie told Ted that she intends to remove the line from her remaining land.  What is the most likely basis for holding that Ted does not have an implied easement by prior existing use for the telephone line?

Raul owned Redacre, a 20-acre parcel of unimproved land.  The east side of Redacre adjoined Blueacre, a 50-acre farm owned by Bob.  Redacre did not adjoin a public road, but Raul held an express easement to travel from the north part of his land across Blueacre on a dirt road to reach Green Lane, a public road located on the east side of Blueacre.  The state then built a new public highway that adjoined the west boundary of Redacre; after the new highway was completed, Raul stopped using the dirt road across Blueacre, and instead reached Redacre from the new highway.  Raul told Bob:  “You might as well plant corn where the road is.  I won’t need it in the future.”  Bob accordingly plowed up the dirt road on Blueacre and planted corn there for the next six years.  Bob eventually purchased the south half of Redacre from Raul and began farming there.  After a flash flood destroyed the highway, Raul tried to cross Blueacre to reach Green Lane but found that tall corn blocked his way.  Assume that the period for prescription in this jurisdiction is five years.  Which of the following is correct?

Dahlia owned a large lot in fee simple absolute. She decided to sever the lot into two parcels, Northacre and Southacre. At the moment of severance, Dahlia conveyed Southacre to Aldo. Her quitclaim deed read, in part: “to Aldo and heirs, together with an eight-foot right of way over Northacre to Southacre’s northern edge for Aldo and his successors and assigns.” Using this eight-foot strip was the only convenient way that Aldo could access his property. Shortly after Dahlia conveyed Southacre, a new road opened bordering the southern edge of Southacre. Thereafter, Aldo always accesses his parcel from the new road. At the present time, which of the following best characterizes Aldo’s interest?

Sam owned a 50-acre parcel of undeveloped land which adjoined a public highway on its north side.  He often hunted wild turkeys on the north half of his land (“Blueacre”), but he visited the south half (“Greenacre”) only four times over the 20 years that he owned the property.  Beth hoped to purchase Greenacre, in order to build a factory; but this property did not adjoin a public road.  Beth’s friend Fred owned Redacre, a 10-acre parcel of vacant land. The west side of Redacre adjoined Greenacre, and the east side of Redacre adjoined a public road.  Beth asked Fred:  “If I buy Greenacre, can I get access across Redacre?”  Fred replied:  “Yes.”  Beth then bought Greenacre for $100,000.  When she arrived at Redacre the next day, she found that Fred had installed “No Trespassing” signs all around the property.  Beth ignored the signs.  For two years, she regularly traveled between Greenacre and the public road by crossing Redacre, further developing her factory plans.  Beth then received a letter from Fred which read:  “Beth:  Sorry, but I’m going to sell Redacre, so you can’t cross it in the future.   Cordially, Fred.”  Under traditional law, which of the following theories is most likely to provide Beth with a legal right to access Greenacre?

A developer owned 100 acres of land that he developed into a residential subdivision. Seventy-five acres were divided into one-acre lots on which single-family homes were built, and the remaining 25 acres were left undeveloped as a “recreational area.” In the deeds to each of the one-acre lots, the developer granted the homeowners a 10-year easement to use the recreational area. Ten years later, the developer sold the 25-acre tract to a waste disposal company, which plans to use the tract to dispose of low-level radioactive waste. The statute of limitations for adverse possession and prescriptive rights is 10 years. If the subdivision homeowners seek to enjoin this use, will they likely prevail?

Nina owned a small shopping center which consisted of 15 retail store spaces and a parking area. Most of the spaces were rented to tenants whose stores sold goods for children. Oliver approached Nina about renting one of her vacant spaces to operate a bookstore. Reasoning that the bookstore would complement the other stores in the center, Nina entered into a written lease with Oliver for a 10-year term. The lease provided, in part: “The premises will be used as a bookstore.” Three years into the lease term, Oliver told Nina that he intended to assign his lease to Paul, who planned to open a pornographic bookstore there. There is no provision in the Nina-Oliver lease that deals with lease transfers. Can Nina block the transfer of the lease to Paul?

Dominic owns a large lot bordering a river. Dominic built his house on the western portion of the lot and constructed a large levee along his eastern lot line to protect against flooding. Dominic sold the eastern portion of his lot to Ronaldo. The deed read, in part: “for the benefit of Dominic, his successors and assigns, Ronaldo expressly promises on behalf of himself, his successors and assigns to maintain the structural integrity of the levee along his lot line.” Ronaldo promptly recorded his deed. Ronaldo then sold his lot to Nanda and a few years later Dominic sold his lot to Lela. Nanda is an agronomist and has planted a number of bushes and trees along the levee. Unfortunately, the root systems of these plants are beginning to affect the soundness of the levee and an expert structural engineer has warned that any abnormally high river flow could breach the levee. Lela has sued Nanda, seeking damages based on Ronaldo’s original promise to maintain the structural integrity of the levee. What is the likely outcome?