Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
26. Who is likely to prevail?
The purchaser has sued the man, claiming that he has an easement over the man's land.
Two years ago, the man conveyed the house to a purchaser by a warranty deed. Two months after the purchaser moved into the house, a neighbor informed him about the easement. He then began using the path that had been marked on the man's land. When the man noticed the purchaser using the path, he erected a barricade on his land that effectively prevented the purchaser from using the path.
Three years ago, the woman conveyed her house to the man. The man never took actual possession of the house.
Five years ago the man conveyed a right-of-way easement over his land to the woman because it provided a more direct route between her house and the highway. The easement was evidenced by a clearly marked path. The document granting the easement was promptly recorded.
A man owned land along the south side of a highway. To the south of the man's land was a lot owned by a woman who lived on it in a house.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
An easement can be destroyed by merger. By definition, an easement is the right to use the lands of another for a special purpose. On this basis, the ownership of the easement and the servient tenement must be in different persons. If ownership of the two comes together in one person, the easement is extinguished. For the merger to be effective, complete unity is required. This means that the duration of the servient tenement must be equal to or longer than the duration of the dominant tenement with which it is combined. If complete unity is acquired, the easement is extinguished.
A is correct. Since an easement is an interest in land held by another person, if the dominant estate and the servient estate become owned by the same person, there is no dominant or servient estate because they have merged into one. In this case, the man had legal ownership of the house for one year until he conveyed to the purchaser. Therefore, when the man held both the servient and dominant estates, the easement was extinguished. An extinguished easement cannot be revived by another conveyance. Therefore, the man will prevail.
B is incorrect. Notice is irrelevant to this question because the purchaser would have no way to take notice of an easement that did not exist at the time of his purchase.
C is incorrect. As explained above, the merger destroyed the easement. Because the easement no longer existed when the man's interest merged, there can be no covenants associated with it.
D is incorrect. Again, the easement did not exist the moment the merger occurred. The fact that it was in the public record that the easement had existed is irrelevant.