McCARTHY HOLDINGS LLC v. Burgher
282 Va. 267
Va.2011Background
- McCarthy Holdings LLC (dominant estate) challenges an easement with Burgher (servient estate) governing 488 square feet of the 1000 Cameron Street property.
- Easement linked to the adjacent 1006 Cameron Street property, previously owned by PSA; McCarthy bought that property in 2008 from PSA and acquired the Easement Agreement rights.
- Easement provides exclusive use of the easement area to the grantee but does not specify the easement’s purpose(s).
- Easement requires Burgher to pay 24.36% of real estate taxes on the 1000 Cameron Street land; Burgher sought tax contribution or declaration that the easement is null.
- Circuit Court held the Easement Agreement unambiguous and not restricting Burgher’s reasonable use; McCarthy paid the 2009 taxes; issue on tax payment became moot.
- Question presented: whether exclusive use, without stated purpose, permits the dominant owner to bar the servient owner from any use as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does exclusive use without stated purpose transfer a fee interest? | McCarthy argues exclusive use implies fee transfer. | Burgher contends easement remains limited use; servient owner retains use unless interference. | No fee interest transferred; easement remains subject to reasonable servient use. |
| May the dominant owner bar any use of the easement area when the purpose is not specified? | Exclusive use bars Burgher from any use. | Exclusive use does not automatically bar all use absent stated purpose. | Dominant owner cannot bar all use; servient owner retains reasonable use not unreasonably interfering. |
| Did the circuit court err in interpreting the Easement Agreement as unambiguous? | Language shows exclusive use; should bar Burgher. | Text and surrounding principles support existing interpretation; no ambiguity. | No error; contract interpreted de novo as written, unambiguous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walton v. Capital Land, Inc., 252 Va. 324 (1996) (exclusive use without purpose may transfer a fee; context matters)
- Shooting Point, L.L.C. v. Wescoat, 265 Va. 256 (2003) (easements may be used for any reasonable purposes not burdening servient estate)
- Brown v. Haley, 233 Va. 210 (1987) (easements are not ownership interests in the servient tract)
- Russakoff v. Scruggs, 241 Va. 135 (1991) (easements create a burden on the servient tract; non-interference standard)
- Preshlock v. Brenner, 234 Va. 407 (1987) (servient owner may use land so long as not unreasonably interfering with easement)
- Sully Station II Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Dye, 259 Va. 282 (2000) (contract interpretation prioritizes language when unambiguous)
- Carter v. Carter, 202 Va. 892 (1961) (interpretation based on actual language, not presumed intention)