[WSBARP] Duty to restore easement area - 2nd Call

[Craig Blackmon]

Yes, I agree, the servient owner has no duty to maintain or restore the
easement area (I found this case too - so thanks for the affirmation!).

What about the *dominant* owner? Does he or she have a duty restore the
easement area once he or she disturbs it pursuant to its use (e.g. repair
of a line)? That is my question.

Amazingly enough, its starting to look like there is very little legal
authority on the subject. Probably because neighbors end up doing the
neighborly thing and restoring the easement area once disturbed. If only
attorneys saw the world in the same light....

Craig
Craig Blackmon, Attorney at Law
Seattle Real Estate Lawyer <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/>
92 Lenora St. (The Makers Space, a shared work environment)
Seattle WA 98121
Office/Cell: (206) 369-5949   Fax: (206) 770-7328
@LawyerBroker <https://twitter.com/LawyerBroker>
How to Buy Without an Agent
<http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Buy+without+an+Agent> | How
to Sell FSBO <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Sell+FSBO>
 | RE Glossary
<http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Real+Estate+Glossary>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is a private, confidential
electronic communication encompassed by 18 USC 2510. It is for the sole use
of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended
recipient does not constitute a loss of its confidential or privileged
nature.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If
you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender and destroy all
copies.


On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 1:18 PM NC <seaseanc at gmail.com> wrote:

> You may consider  Donner v. Blue, 347 P. 3d 881 - 2015
> ¶ 12 And according to a leading treatise on real property easements,
> servient owners ordinarily owe no duty to the dominant owner to repair or
> maintain the easement unless an agreement varies these duties:4
>
> Servient owners, according to the New Restatement, have no duty to the
> dominant owner to “repair or maintain the servient estate or the facilities
> used in the enjoyment of the easement or profit.” Because the duty to
> maintain an easement ordinarily rests on the easement owner, servient
> owners had no duty to construct stairs to the beach for the benefit of a
> dominant estate owner. 7 Thompson on Real Property: The Law of Easements §
> 60.05(a) (David A. Thomas ed., 2d ed.2006) (footnote omitted) (quoting
> Restatement (Third) of Prop.: Servitudes § 4.13(3) (2000)). There is scant
> Washington case law on point. Blue cites several cases from other states
> discussing in general the lack of any duty on the servient estate owner to
> remove or cut back vegetation that encroached onto an easement. Smith v.
> Muellner, 283 Conn. 510, 932 A.2d 382 (2007); Schwartz v. Murphy, 74
> Conn.App. 286, 812 A.2d 87 (2002); Suitts v. McMurtrey, 97 Idaho 416, 546
> P.2d 62 (1976). The Donners properly concede that easement owners owe a
> duty to maintain the easement benefitting their dominant estates.
> Appellants' Reply Br. at 1. Nevertheless, the Donners argue with no
> citation to authority that Forbus controls over easement law. We are
> unaware of any case that extends the rule in Forbus to the easement
> interest context. We decline to do so here.
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 1:16 PM Craig Blackmon <
> craig at lawofficeofcraigblackmon.com> wrote:
>
>> Ah, I'll give it one more shot. I'd rather be lucky than good (at legal
>> research). But if not, Monday I will be off to the law library.
>>
>> To recap: Does an easement impose a duty to restore the area if
>> disturbance is required or its use, where it does not say so expressly?
>>
>> For example, a simple side sewer easement makes no mention of a duty to
>> restore. The benefited estate disturbs the area in making a necessary
>> repair, and refuses to restore the area to its prior condition. Does the
>> burdened estate have a remedy?
>>
>> I just can't believe this has never come up. Thanks, and enjoy the
>> weekend, all!!
>>
>> Craig
>> Craig Blackmon, Attorney at Law
>> Seattle Real Estate Lawyer <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/>
>> 92 Lenora St. (The Makers Space, a shared work environment)
>> Seattle WA 98121
>> Office/Cell: (206) 369-5949   Fax: (206) 770-7328
>> @LawyerBroker <https://twitter.com/LawyerBroker>
>> How to Buy Without an Agent
>> <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Buy+without+an+Agent>
>>  | How to Sell FSBO
>> <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Sell+FSBO> | RE
>> Glossary
>> <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Real+Estate+Glossary>
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is a private, confidential
>> electronic communication encompassed by 18 USC 2510. It is for the sole use
>> of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended
>> recipient does not constitute a loss of its confidential or privileged
>> nature.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If
>> you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender and destroy all
>> copies.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 3:26 PM Craig Blackmon <
>> craig at lawofficeofcraigblackmon.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 'Mates, opposing counsel and I are having a friendly dispute about the
>>> existence of a duty, if any, to restore an easement area, where disturbance
>>> is required for its use. Assume the easement itself makes no mention of
>>> such a duty. Does it exist?
>>>
>>> For example, a simple side sewer easement makes no mention of a duty to
>>> restore. The benefitted estate disturbs the area in making a necessary
>>> repair, and refuses to restore. Does the burdened estate have a remedy?
>>>
>>> Thoughts? Cites? The group wisdom is as always humbly appreciated.
>>>
>>> Craig
>>> Craig Blackmon, Attorney at Law
>>> Seattle Real Estate Lawyer <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/>
>>> 92 Lenora St. (The Makers Space, a shared work environment)
>>> Seattle WA 98121
>>> Office/Cell: (206) 369-5949   Fax: (206) 770-7328
>>> @LawyerBroker <https://twitter.com/LawyerBroker>
>>> How to Buy Without an Agent
>>> <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Buy+without+an+Agent>
>>>  | How to Sell FSBO
>>> <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Sell+FSBO> | RE
>>> Glossary
>>> <http://www.seattlepropertylawyer.com/blog?category=Real+Estate+Glossary>
>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication is a private, confidential
>>> electronic communication encompassed by 18 USC 2510. It is for the sole use
>>> of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended
>>> recipient does not constitute a loss of its confidential or privileged
>>> nature.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If
>>> you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender and destroy all
>>> copies.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WSBARP mailing list
>> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
>> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
>
>
> --
> Nicholas L. Clapham
> (407)484-9625
>
> NOTICE- This email message may contain confidential and privileged
> information. It is intended only for the named recipient(s) and may
> contain
> attorney work product and/or information exempt from disclosure under
> applicable law. Any unauthorized use is prohibited.  If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy
> all copies of the original message. This does not constitute an electronic
> signature.
>
> Pursuant to U.S. Treasury Department Circular 230 and other IRS
> regulations, unless we expressly state otherwise, any tax advice contained
> in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or
> written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding
> tax-related penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
> another party any transaction or matter(s) addressed herein.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20180921/b20acbe6/attachment.html>