A Normative Analysis of Easement Rights

833 Words4 Pages
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.

More about A Normative Analysis of Easement Rights

Open Document