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.
27. Must the solar collector be removed?
The neighbor immediately sued to compel the woman to remove the solar collector.
Recently, the woman erected a large solar collector on a portion of her land subject to the easement, even though the woman has other power resources. The location was essential to acquire the maximum sunlight. However, by erecting the collector there, the woman effectively cut off the neighbor's ability to use the easement. The local zoning code permits the use of solar collectors.
A woman owned land that abutted a public highway to the south. A neighbor owned the land immediately to the north. The neighbor's predecessor had received an easement from the woman's predecessor in title to cross the woman's land for access to the public highway. This access was desired even though the neighbor and his predecessor had other access to public roads.
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
A is incorrect. «Other means of access» is only relevant for easements that arise from necessity. This question concerns an easement by grant. The neighbor having other means of access is not relevant to whether the solar collector remains in the face of an easement by grant.
B is incorrect. Appurtenant easements are nonpossessory property interests as between landowners; zoning is a state's exercise of control over uses of land. Although a zoning code may allow for certain uses, this would have no effect on easement rights between landowners that are valid as a matter of privity. Therefore, the zoning code allowing for use of solar collectors is not relevant to whether the woman's solar collector remains.
D is incorrect. Although it is the proper conclusion, it is not the correct reasoning. An appurtenant easement concerns a dominant estate's nonpossessory property right in a servient estate. Here, the neighbor as the owner of the dominant estate has a nonpossessory right in the woman's servient estate, as granted in the easement, which only concerned the neighbor's access to the highway and not the woman's power resources. The woman having other power resources does not affect the express grant of the appurtenant easement.