Easement is the right to use other’s land without acquiring the possession. Granting this right allows properties to be accessible and land to be better utilized. Commercial easement is essential part of many businesses. Without easements, companies might not have the right of way to connect effectively, excess land might not be put to their best use, and much redundant transaction or contract will be needed to achieve corporate goals. However, easement is complicated and could lead to conflict in the future even if recorded in detailed writing. Since no one can foretell the future, owner or holder might not have the same purpose for using the land after the easement agreement. The case below describe the conflict on easement right that owner sued right holder since owner need it for other purposes.
The case is M.F. Farming, Co. v. Couch Distributing Company, Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2012. Plaintiff M.F. Farming, Co (MF) has granted defendant Couch Distributing Company (Couch Distributing) the “nonexclusive right of way for ingress and egress and for all utility purposes” on a 60-feet wide strip of land named Parcel B with the sale of ownership of the adjoining Parcel A and Parcel C to Couch Distributing. (See Appendix A) Couch Distributing has constructed Parcel A as distribution center and use Parcel B as private road to service the business, including employee parking, maneuver and ingress and egress of trucks. At some point, Couch Distributing even constructed a railroad across Parcel B to serve its warehouse. This has also made the plaintiff believe this has creased minor encroachment. George Couch, president and CEO of Couch Distributing, said that at the time of property purchase, Parcel B was understood...
... middle of paper ...
...d to put parcel into different use. And since our community is growing and dense land become the trend in many cities, easement led to issues which prevent development from starting. As a conclusion, I believe we need to do the two following adjustment to easement. First, when easement is created, intend of the easement should be stated clearly so both party understand what to expect in the future and fraud could be prevented. Also, when owner of the property require the use of property for the greater good, easement contract should have a better way of being resolved. When termination of easement is absolutely necessary for development, how beneficial it is for the community should be to weight in into decision just like termination with eminent domain.
Works Cited
M.F. Farming, Co. v. Couch Distributing Company, Cal: Court of Appeal, 6th Appellate Dist. 2012.
Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 108 S. Ct. 592, 98 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1988).
United States v. Sell, 343 F.3d 950, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 26859 (8th Cir., Sept. 2, 2003)
Judicial History: The District court of Iowa granted a motion for summary judgement in favor of National By-Products, Inc. The court determined that Dale Dyer had an invalid claim to bring forth a lawsuit, thus lacking consideration to create a contract.
The concept of eminent domain is the condemnation of property for the public’s well being or good for private use is not the original intention and should not be used in this way. Private corporations and individuals are using the initial purpose was for the acquisition of land for the building of railroads and highways. The use of eminent domain has changed over the years by law, government and legal interpretations. These changes have allowed private interest groups to petition the state and local governments for eminent domain to be declared on property where the owners refuse to sell. Each states position on eminent domain is decided by the legislature and the voters of the state for use by private corporations and individuals. The claim by the corporations and individuals is that there projects is for the good of the public which plays of the condemnation of property and roads of being for the public’s well being. The use of eminent domain for the acquisition of land to build the Keystone Pipeline does not fall within the confines of for the public’s well being.
...ce rights underlying state forests, state parks, and state game lands, where those rights are owned by a private party. The regulation of such private subsurface rights to protect public resources must be reasonable. That way such regulation is not so burdensome as to affect an unconstitutional “taking” of private property without just compensation. However, the owner of the subsurface rights is limited by a good faith “reasonable use” requirement as a limit to its access to the surface area for the development of subsurface rights.
Unfortunately for Ashton, Busch is correct. There is no enforceable contract between the two landowners. The oral agreement is not enforceable because it involves the transfer of land and the sale of goods between the two is greater
United States v. 50 Acres of Land was a court case between a public committee and the United States government. As a result of a flood control project, the United States government condemned 50 acres of land that was being used as a landfill. The dispute was over whether the government needed to provide more money for the 50 acres of land. The court had only provided compensation based on the current market value of the property instead of an amount that would have allowed the city to construct a larger, replacement facility. The Supreme Court upheld the court’s ruling that the normal market value was just compensation in a unanimous 9-0 ruling.
TITLE AND CITATION: United States of America v. Raymond J. Place 462 U.S. 696 (1983)
The last section of the proposal was the Socio-Economic Assessment North Lily Property Fee Title Acquisition. The socio-economic assessment detailed the law authorizing and purpose of the acquisition. A brief synopsis of the current population and use of th...
An easement is a right to use another person's property while a profit is the right to enter and to take natural resources such as trees, oil, soil.
In that case, the owners of Grand Central Terminal in New York City sued the city over a local ordinance that prohibited them from demolishing the terminal to build a high-rise. The owners argued that their air rights had been taken away by the ordinance which prevented them from using the space above the terminal in a way that they see fit as owners of the terminal. The Court ruled that the ‘taking’ in this case does not segment one whole parcel into different sections and attempt to decide if one segment of the parcel has been unfairly taken compared to the others. Murr used this precedent case to show that his Lots were two separate lots and should be considered as two separate lots with the rights of two separate lots. He wanted the Court to focus on the ‘taking’ of the single parcel and consider his two lots as two separate parcels of land which the Wisconsin ordinance was preventing from happening. Murr was adamant in proclaiming that his two lots were purchased separately and developed separately from one another with one lot having a cabin on it and the other being practically untouched which is why Murr wanted to sell it in the first place. It is only as two separate and distinct lots that Murr can sell his one lot to be able to fix up the other one. This specific ordinance is preventing that action from taking
This was practiced when private land was taken to construct roads or other needs for the colonies. Although the development of roads benefited the public, the matter of payment for the seized land wasn’t a regulation. The payment to the private land owners was seen more as a courtesy then requirement. The power to exercise eminent domain by the federal government laid inactive until the case of Kohl v. United States, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government in 1875. Justice William Strong came to the conclusion that “the very nature of sovereignty allowed the taking of land for public use, and also invoked the Takings Clause as supporting the government's right to exercise eminent domain powers” (Newton 1). As the years pass, the powers of eminent domain seem to get interpreted more
Eminent domain has long been a controversial power that both the federal and state governments possess. This power gives the right to the government bodies to expropriate private property or land, that it sees as being blighted, and put it to better use for the greater good of the public. For eminent domain to be exercised the seizing of the properties must meet the requirement that they will be for public purpose or public necessity. As long as this requirement is met the federal government cannot be stopped from acquiring private property. Because of this, the eminent domain power has come under tremendous scrutiny for being unfair and unconstitutional. Moreover, people that have fell victim to this law are protesting that they were not adequately compensated for the property that was taken. The law of eminent domain continues to be a point of debate as it has been continuously proven that this law has negative consequences on not only the residents directly affected by the ramifications of the law, but also the communities that are made up of these residences.
‘A trespass is an unjustified, direct interference with land in the possession of another and is actionable per se without proof of actual damage. ’ In the case Browns v Dunsmuir, it explains that “trespass to land occurs when a person without justification causes anything to enter upon land which is in the possession of another. The tort is actionable without proof of loss.”
Or, imagine you would like to add a stone walkway to your garden. You begin to research the procedure and costs, only to learn that a lengthy application will be required, with multiple hearings before a state commission. You find yourself embroiled in a Kafkaesque legal battle costing tens of thousands of dollars. Finally, after years of struggle the government demands, as a condition for approving your little walkway, that you “donate” a portion of your land to the state.