James Cobb v. Gary A. King, 976 N.W.2d 410

Neighbor dispute: Gary King’s parcel is landlocked and he uses a recorded 1978 ingress/egress deed across the Cobbs’ land (granted to Herbert and Jean Hessil) to access his property.
The 1978 deed grants a right of ingress and egress “for the purpose of vehicular traffic only” but does not use words of inheritance (e.g., "heirs and assigns").
The Hessils later conveyed their property to King (2009) without expressly referencing the easement; the Cobbs sued seeking a declaration that the easement was personal to the Hessils (nontransferable); King counterclaimed that the easement ran with the land.
The circuit court granted summary judgment to King; the court of appeals affirmed, applying this court’s precedent in Borek Cranberry Marsh, Inc. v. Jackson County.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review but dismissed the petition as improvidently granted, leaving the lower-court judgment in place; separate concurring and dissenting opinions urged explanation and urged reconsideration of Borek.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cobb)	Defendant's Argument (King)	Held
Whether Wis. Stat. § 706.10(3) applies to easements	§ 706.10(3) should not govern easements; its first clause speaks only to conveyances creating or conveying a fee	§ 706.10(3) applies to easements and creates a presumption that easements run with the land absent express contrary intent	Review dismissed as improvidently granted; court did not resolve the statute’s application to easements (lower-court judgment for King remains)
Whether absence of words of inheritance makes the easement personal (nontransferable)	Lack of "heirs/assigns" supports finding a personal, nontransferable easement limited to the original grantees	Under Borek, absence of inheritance words does not by itself make an easement personal; transfer to King was effective	No decision on the substantive question; summary judgment for King stands by procedural posture
Whether Borek Cranberry Marsh should be revisited/overruled	Borek misreads § 706.10(3) by conflating two independent clauses and overrelying on borrowed-statute history; this court should correct Borek	Borek controls under stare decisis; lower courts must follow it until this court reconsiders	Supreme Court declined to decide; dissenters urged correction but majority dismissed review as improvidently granted

Borek Cranberry Marsh, Inc. v. Jackson Cnty., 328 Wis. 2d 613 (Wis. 2010) (held § 706.10(3) applies to easements and supported transferability absent contrary intent)
Kalal v. Cir. Ct. for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (articulates Wisconsin's textualist framework for statutory interpretation)
Polebitski v. John Week Lumber Co., 157 Wis. 377 (Wis. 1914) (explains an easement grants a right of use, not title — distinguishes easements from fees)
Hunter v. McDonald, 78 Wis. 2d 338 (Wis. 1977) (reiterates that an easement does not create an estate in land)
Colson v. Salzman, 272 Wis. 397 (Wis. 1956) (cites distinctions between easements and fees in Wisconsin property law)
Johnson v. Wis. Elections Comm'n, 399 Wis. 2d 623 (Wis. 2021) (discusses standards for when and why this court should overturn precedent)