Cox v. Glenbrook Company

Supreme Court of Nevada · 1962 · Property

371 P.2d 647 (1962)

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyEasementsDeclaratory Judgmentsappurtenant easementright-of-wayfull right of useunambiguous grantsubdivision of dominant estate

Facts

In 1938 Glenbrook Company granted Henry Quill an easement and right-of-way with a 'full right of use' over Glenbrook's roads from U.S. Route 50 to Quill's 80-acre parcel. Quill's successors eventually sold the parcel to Cox and Detrick, who planned to subdivide it into 40 to 60 residential parcels and had begun preliminary development work, including rough grading the 'back road.' The parcel's only existing access was through Glenbrook's property by either the 'back road' or the 'golf course road,' and Glenbrook later barricaded the golf course road. The back road was narrow, unpaved, and originally intended to be only rough access sufficient for one car with occasional turnouts.

Issue

Whether the 1938 grant's phrase 'full right of use' was ambiguous so as to permit judicial restriction of the easement's scope, whether the easement could be limited to a single-family use and to the roads as presently constructed, whether Cox and Detrick could improve or widen the road, whether Glenbrook could barricade the golf course road, and whether the court could presently declare that the proposed subdivision use would unreasonably burden the servient estate.

Rule

If an easement created by conveyance is clear and unambiguous, its extent is fixed by the instrument and may not be narrowed by judicial interpretation. An appurtenant easement passes to successors of the whole dominant estate and to successors of subdivided parts unless the grant says otherwise. The easement holder may maintain, repair, and improve the way within its original borders when reasonably calculated to serve the easement's purpose, so long as this does not unduly burden the servient estate or unreasonably interfere with others' similar rights; however, if width is unspecified, width is limited by the parties' intended width at the time of the grant. Declaratory relief may not conclusively determine whether future proposed use will create an unreasonable burden when that question depends on facts not yet existing.

🔒

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 1995, Redwood Mesa Ranch in Carson City granted Dana Merrill "an easement and right-of-way, with full right of use over the ranch roads" to reach Dana's 30-acre parcel. Dana later sold the parcel to Omar Singh, who plans to use the parcel year-round, and Redwood Mesa argues the easement should be limited to occasional weekend access because that was the parties' unstated expectation.

How should a court most likely rule on the scope of Omar's easement?

Explanation. If a conveyance clearly grants an easement with a "full right of use," the instrument fixes the extent of the privilege, and a court may not rewrite it into a restricted right of use under the guise of interpretation. The majority treated that phrase as clear and unambiguous.