Brown v. Voss

Supreme Court of Washington · 1986 · Property

Propertyeasementsappurtenantscopeexpansioneasement appurtenantdominant estateservient estate

Facts

In 1952, the predecessors of parcel A granted the predecessors of parcel B a private road easement across parcel A for ingress to and egress from parcel B. Plaintiffs later bought parcel B and then the adjoining parcel C, intending to build a single-family residence straddling the boundary between B and C and used the easement while developing the property. The trial court found no unreasonable use, no increase in travel volume, no increase in burden on parcel A, and no damage to defendants other than a slight inadvertent trespass outside the easement. It also found defendants waited more than a year while plaintiffs spent over $11,000 and that an injunction would cause plaintiffs considerable hardship while denial would cause defendants no appreciable hardship or damage.

Issue

Whether the holder of an express easement appurtenant to parcel B may use that easement across parcel A to reach and benefit parcel C, a subsequently acquired parcel not part of the original dominant estate, when the combined use causes no increase in burden on the servient estate. If such use is misuse, the further question is whether the servient owners are nevertheless entitled to an injunction as a matter of law.

Rule

The extent of an express easement is determined from the terms of the grant construed to effectuate the parties' intent. As a general rule, an easement appurtenant to one parcel may not be extended to benefit other parcels not included in the original dominant estate; such extension is misuse even if it causes no increase in burden on the servient estate. But injunctive relief is equitable, lies within the trial court's broad discretion, and requires actual and substantial injury to the party seeking the injunction.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Spokane, Nora Kim owns Lot 12 and holds an express driveway easement across Owen Pike's Lot 11 for "ingress to and egress from Lot 12." A year later, Nora buys adjacent Lot 13 and begins using the same driveway to reach a garage built entirely on Lot 13, although the added use does not increase traffic or wear on Lot 11.

If Owen sues to stop Nora's use of the driveway for Lot 13, which statement is most accurate?

Explanation. The majority held that the scope of an express easement is determined by the terms of the grant construed to effectuate the parties' intent. An easement appurtenant to one parcel may not be extended to benefit another parcel not included in the original dominant estate. That is misuse even when the added use does not increase the physical burden on the servient estate. (Derived from Brown v. Voss (1986).)