501 P.3d 545
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- Hatch heirs partitioned beachfront property; in 1997 they sold Parcel 2 but reserved "a beach access Easement along the Southerly 5 feet of Parcel 2 *, in favor of the owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, of the following described property," listing four dominant parcels.
- Parcel 2 is the servient estate; four listed parcels are the dominant estates.
- Block owns two of the listed dominant parcels and a nearby "green house" lot; in 2017 he executed "Easement Assignment Agreement for Beach Access" documents purporting to assign easement rights to non-owner third parties (including the Leaches).
- DEA Properties-2, LLC (DEA) acquired Parcel 2 and restricted easement use to owners of the dominant estates; DEA sued/declaratory-judgment litigation followed.
- Trial court concluded the reservation allowed assignees to hold easement separate from dominant land and declared the remaining assignments (to the Leaches and one to Block as green-house owner) valid; it also found an implied easement in DEA’s favor over a driveway on Block’s parcel.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed: it held the deed unambiguously created an ordinary appurtenant easement not severable from the dominant estates, and remanded the implied-easement counterclaim for reconsideration under the correct legal standard (intent at time of 1997 conveyance).
Issues
| Issue | Block's Argument | DEA's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appurtenant easement reserved "in favor of the owners, their heirs, successors and assigns" may be assigned separately to non-owners | The word "assigns" shows clear intent to permit separate assignment of the easement apart from ownership | The easement is appurtenant and runs with the dominant land; "assigns" refers to assignees of the property (e.g., leaseholders) or simply makes the easement run with the land, not to freestanding assignability | Reversed: deed unambiguously created an ordinary appurtenant easement that cannot be severed and assigned separately from the dominant estate |
| Whether DEA has an implied easement over a driveway on Block's parcel | N/A in appeal (Block cross-appealed the trial court’s ruling) | Implied easement may exist if circumstances at the time of severance show intent to create it | Reversed and remanded: trial court applied incorrect temporal standard (look must be to circumstances at 1997 conveyance); remand for reevaluation under correct legal standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Jones, 256 Or. App. 392 (Or. App. 2013) (defines appurtenant easement as benefiting owner by virtue of land ownership)
- Sunset Lake v. Remington, 45 Or. App. 973 (Or. App. 1980) (distinguishes easement in gross from appurtenant easement)
- Jantzen Beach Associates v. Jantzen Dynamic Corp., 200 Or. App. 457 (Or. App. 2005) (an appurtenant servitude is not severable from the land)
- Bloomfield v. Weakland, 224 Or. App. 433 (Or. App. 2009) (construing easement purpose and scope)
- Manusos v. Skeels, 263 Or. App. 721 (Or. App. 2014) (implied easement arises from intent at time of severance)
- Eagles Five, LLC v. Lawton, 250 Or. App. 413 (Or. App. 2012) (clarifies inquiry for implied easement: circumstances at conveyance)