<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle20
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;
color:windowtext;
font-weight:normal;
font-style:normal;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Craig, I don’t see any answers so I thought I’d give you my thoughts. Initially, legally, if the prescriptive easement (“PE”) is used to get to the entirety of the property,
then I imagine (read that as no research) the PE would benefit the entire property and a subdivision of the parcel would be irrelevant (could the owner of the servient tenement argue this is an improper expansion or overburdening of the PE?). But, on a practical
note, I think (once again---no research) a PE is only good for the actual use of the servient tenement. So if the existing road is 12 feet wide, then you only have a PE for 12 feet wide but when you go to the local planning department, you might find that
the local development authorities will require a 40 foot wide easement (or something like that.) So, you might want to approach this backwards, talk to the planning department first and see what they would require AND THEN argue that’s the width of the PE.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="Paul_A__Neumiller"><img width="250" height="150" style="width:2.6in;height:1.5583in" id="_x0000_i1025" src="cid:image001.jpg@01D82E28.1C1494B0"></a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail message is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. E-mail messages to clients
of Paul A. Neumiller presumptively contain information that is confidential and legally privileged; e-mail messages to non-clients are normally confidential and may also be legally privileged. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless
you are the intended recipient of it. If you have received this message in error, please forward it back to the sender and delete it completely from your computer system.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">E-mail communication on the Internet may NOT be secure. There is a risk that this confidential communication may be intercepted illegally. There may also be a risk of waiving
attorney-client and/or work-product privileges that may attach to this communication. DO NOT forward this message to a third party. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact the sender.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com <wsbarp-bounces@lists.wsbarppt.com>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Craig Sjostrom<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 2, 2022 9:31 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> 'WSBA Real Property Listserv' <wsbarp@lists.wsbarppt.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [WSBARP] Prescriptive easement & subdivision<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Client has a rural parcel that he’s living on. He has a record access easement but it’s physically unusable. Instead, he’s been using an alternate route in and out, for probably 25 years, most likely sufficient to support a prescriptive
easement claim.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Client wants to subdivide his property. If he were to obtain a quiet title decree awarding a prescriptive easement over his existing road, would it be able to serve the existing lot plus a new one subdivided out later? I tend to think
not, but am curious as to what others think about it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Craig<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message contains information belonging to the Law Office of Craig Sjostrom, which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended
only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you believe that you have received this message in error, please be so kind as to contact the sender and delete the message. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution
or copying is strictly prohibited. Thank you. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">> Law Office of Craig Sjostrom, 1204 Cleveland Ave., Mount Vernon, WA 98273 Phone (360) 848-0339 Fax (360) 336-3488 email
<a href="mailto:cdsjostrom@comcast.net"><span style="color:blue">cdsjostrom@comcast.net</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>