[WSBARP] Effect of Lender Foreclosure on Easement Agreement

[Ron Housh]

A grants B an easement across A’s land.

B agrees to develop a public road on the easement which road will then benefit both A and B who plan to separately develop their respective properties with single family homes.

B “goes under” and loses his property to a lender foreclosure.

C acquires B’s property from the lender.

 

C does not want the easement and when presented with the recorded easement says “the easement was extinguished at the time of the foreclosure.”  C obviously does not want to be burdened with having to build the public road.

 

1.        I don’t believe the easement is extinguished – in other words I do not believe foreclosures typically if ever extinguish easements.

2.       But – I am not sure about C’s obligation to build a public road.  C never assumed or agreed to assume that obligation.  Would the “run with the land” language in the recorded easement effectively pass the burden of building a public road to C?  

3.       Related question:  easement was recorded in 2007.  B actually did some work on the easement that was part of the public road construction process.  If the burden of building the public road does pass to C, when would a cause of action against B (and now C) accrue?  Wondering if there may be a statute of limitations issue? 

 

Thanks in advance for thoughts.

Ron 

 

 

 

I AM TYPICALLY IN THE SEATTLE OFFICE ON TUESDAY AND THURSDAY AND IN THE MOUNT VERNON OFFICE ON MONDAY, WEDNESDAY AND FRIDAY 

 

Ronald G. Housh, P.S.

Attorney at Law

 

Seattle Office:

1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3000

Seattle, WA 98101-2393

Phone:   206-381-1341

Fax:        206-464-0461

Email:     <mailto:ron at housh.org> ron at housh.org

 

Mount Vernon Office:

21411 Bluejay Place

Mount Vernon, WA 98274

Phone:  206-235-2459

Email:    <mailto:ron at housh.org> ron at housh.org

 


 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20150217/13f52589/attachment.html>