Albert owns Blackacre, which is a 100 acre parcel. There is a house and a farm located on the northern half on the property. There is also a dirt road that runs vertically, in the middle of the property, from the southern to the northern boundary line of Blackacre. The dirt road intersects Route 10 at the northern boundary line of Albert's property, and is the only way to access Route 10 in this area. There are farms surrounding Blackacre on the south, east and west. Thomas owns the land that is adjacent to Blackacre at the south boundary line.
Albert sells 50 of the eastern most acres, which includes the existing dirt road, to Calvin. Calvin enters into an oral agreement with Thomas for use of a paved road on Thomas' property to the south of his that intersects with Route 25. After the conveyance to Calvin, Albert continues to use the dirt road to gain access to Route 10. Calvin knows that this dirt road is on his property, but he doesn't object to Albert's use of it, because they are friends and neighbors, and Calvin uses the paved road across Thomas' land.
Twelve years after Calvin's purchase of the land, AgriFarm, a multinational farming corporation, buys Albert's retaining westerly 50 acres, and also buys Thomas' property to the south. In an effort to force Calvin to sell his land for less than fair market value, AgriFarm prohibits Calvin from using the southern road to Route 25. In retaliation, Calvin prohibits AgriFarm from using the northern dirt to Route 10.
1. What are the rights, duties and obligations of Calvin and AgriFarm?
2. Would your answer change if a new survey revealed that the dirt road to Route 10 was never sold to Calvin by Albert, and as a result, the true owner is AgriFarm? What are Calvin's remedies?
ISSUE: Prescriptive Easement
ANALYSIS: Calvin can not satisfy the prescriptive easement requirement for the paved road over the parcel formerly owned by Thomas because Thomas entered into an oral agreement with Calvin giving him permission to use the road.
ISSUE: Implied Easements:
1. Implied from prior use\quasi-easement.
ANALYSIS: Calvin may be able to satisfy this test if he can prove a sufficient necessity for the easement. Note that because his parcel is not landlocked, access to Route 25 may only be a convenience.
2. Easement by necessity.
ANALYSIS: Calvin can not satisfy this requirement because his parcel is not landlocked.
ISSUE: IRREVOCABLE LICENSES: Calvin should try to obtain an irrevocable license based on Constructive Trust or Easement by Estoppel (MAJORITY/MINORITY RULES).
ISSUE: Prescriptive Easement
ANALYSIS: AgriFarm can satisfy the prescriptive easement requirement for the dirt road over Calvin's the parcel. The primary issue will be whether Calvin acquiescenced to the easement.
ISSUE: Implied Easements:
1. Implied from prior use\quasi-easement.
ANALYSIS: AgriFarm may be able to satisfy this test if it can prove a sufficient necessity for the easement. Note that this parcel is not landlocked, because AgriFarm has access to Route 25.
2. Easement by necessity.
ANALYSIS: AgriFarm can not satisfy this requirement because its parcel is not landlocked.
ISSUE: IRREVOCABLE LICENSES
ANALYSIS: AgriFarm may also try to obtain an irrevocable license based on Constructive Trust or Easement by Estoppel (MAJORITY/MINORITY RULES).
ISSUE: Easement by necessity.
ANALYSIS: Calvin's parcel would be landlocked if he does not have access to the dirt road or the paved road. It is important to note that the necessity for the easement must exist at the moment of severance; a necessity arising later will have no effect. Generally, the claimant cannot make out necessity if he has access over other land of his that adjoins the would-be dominant estate. But he can if a stranger owns the adjoining land, because he has no claim of access over the stranger's land.