1701 E. MAIN, LLC VS. WAWA, INC.(L-0895-14, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-5469-15T2

Background

1701 E. Main, LLC (successor to Miles Petroleum) owns a 150x150 corner lot adjoining a larger Wawa parcel in Millville; a 1972 unrecorded letter between Miles Petroleum and Wawa agreed to keep adjoining perimeters free of obstructions to permit customers ingress/egress.
The 1972 letter did not use the words "easement" or "heirs and assigns" and was never recorded; its language is ambiguous about whether rights ran with the land.
In 2001 Wawa sought to buy Miles Petroleum’s lot; negotiations failed when Miles demanded a high price. During their one meeting neither party raised the 1972 letter or discussed Wawa’s plan to install curbing.
Wawa redeveloped its property in 2006 and installed curbing along the common perimeter, blocking through access; Miles Lerman (then owner) died in 2008 and 1701 later succeeded to title.
1701 discovered the curbing by 2012 and sued; the trial court granted summary judgment declaring any cross-easement terminated by estoppel.
On appeal the Appellate Division reversed and remanded, holding material, fact-sensitive disputes about silence, notice, and reasonable reliance precluded summary judgment under Brill.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an alleged easement/servitude existed and passed to 1701	1972 agreement created an easement benefitting successor (1701)	1972 letter was not an easement or did not convey rights to successors; ambiguous language limits scope	Existence and transmissibility of any easement are uncertain; factual issues remain for trial
Whether Wawa proved termination of any easement by estoppel	1701 had not manifested assent; Wawa’s curbing was not reasonably relied upon by 1701/predecessor	Wawa argued Miles’ silence and failure to object to redevelopment and curbing amounted to conduct terminating rights by estoppel	Reversed: credibility and inferences about silence and notice are fact-sensitive; summary judgment inappropriate
Whether Miles Petroleum’s silence in 2001 communicated intent to terminate/modify servitude	Silence did not convey intent; no discussion of 1972 agreement	Silence (and later failure to object to curbing) showed acquiescence, reasonably leading Wawa to change position	Court held that whether silence constituted a communication under Restatement (Third) § 7.6 is a triable issue
Whether Wawa reasonably relied and changed position to its detriment	Wawa’s redevelopment was not shown to be induced by any communicated release	Wawa claimed it altered redevelopment plans and installed curbs in reasonable reliance on Miles’ conduct/silence	Court found disputed facts about foreseeability of reliance and detrimental change; summary judgment improper

Key Cases Cited

Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (recognizing Brill summary-judgment standard)
Rossi v. Sierchio, 30 N.J. Super. 575 (estoppel can extinguish an easement)
Johnston v. Hyde, 33 N.J. Eq. 632 (early equitable authority on servitudes and estoppel)
Segal v. Lynch, 211 N.J. 230 (discussion of estoppel and equitable doctrines)
Carlsen v. Masters, Mates & Pilots Pension Plan Trust, 80 N.J. 334 (New Jersey estoppel principles)
Clark v. Judge, 84 N.J. Super. 35 (estoppel and servitude issues)
Tide-Water Pipe Co. v. Blair Holding Co., 42 N.J. 591 (intent controls creation and scope of easements)