Easements 2

The second easement suit illustrates once again the unfortunate results of poorly defined documentation.  The possibilities of easement creation and elimination are endless.  Typically, when neighbors are getting along there are no problems, but  all too often a relatively minor issue, a Chevy lawn ornament or a Peace and Freedom Party campaign billboard, becomes the first link in a chain that leads to disputes over access and and easements. 

Of course I am normally retained by one of the diputants, so I only get a subjective perspective on who did what, but as a surveyor.  I try to ignore the history and clarify the physical aspects and the specific affect as well as the intent of any pertinant documentation.   

In this case.  The neighbors, Who I will refer to as G and W, are in dipute over an existing driveway that crosses the W property and then branches to provide access to the G lot.  G purchased their lot in 1995 and at that time their deed included easement access across the neighboring parcel, specifically describing an area that was substantially the same as the existing driveway.   When W. acquired their lot in 2001, they were concerned about a fence encroachment in the easement area and prepared two documents for the purpose of "clarifying the rights of the parties with respect to the easement."  These documents included a quit-claim deed which effectively relinquished G's right to the easement, and an Easement deed to be recorded concurrently that granted access to the same described area.  The easement deed also included language specifying use of the area of W's property enclosed by the fence, and included a termination date 5 years in the future.  

The 2001 agreement was a bad deal for G.  It specifically did allow the fence encroachment to continue for 5 years and the area within the fence to be used for landscaping purposes, but after the termination date, all easement and encroachment rights were relinquished and the fence was subject to removal.  G. says that he signed the agreement on a Sunday afternoon, at the request of the real estate agent.  He believed that he was facilitating the sale for the previous landowner, an elderly woman with whom he had always had amicable relations and that he barely looked at it.  In 2006, when W. invoked the termination clause, G offered to purchase the easement and land area within his fence, but after failing to negotiate a purchase agreement the affair has ended up in court.  Trial date scheduled for next Monday.