What? Easement ridiculousness...

[Karenj]

This is a complex matter and I would like to thank those of you that are kind enough to help me understand it.

 

[154NH773]

Back up a little. Who gave the deed to the town?

If it was given by ALL the servient tenents for the purpose of creating a public road, and the deed to the town so states, then the town has the right to do all the things you are complaining about.

I think you need local legal advice, since the wording of the various deeds, and who signed them, is critical.

 

[Karenj]

Back up a little. Who gave the deed to the town?

If it was given by ALL the servient tenents for the purpose of creating a public road, and the deed to the town so states, then the town has the right to do all the things you are complaining about.

I think you need local legal advice, since the wording of the various deeds, and who signed them, is critical.

No, neither the rights nor property were sold by the property owners. The "rights" were sold by the dominant tenant to the town. But the town changed them first to include paving and culverts and utilities and specifically says "public street".

I have both documents. The names are the same.

I appreciate the input and I won't bore you all anymore

It just seems very wrong to me, and I don't think that what I want would affect any future use of the easement that exists on my property, nor does it affect any parties in any negative way.

 

[RRevak]

No, neither the rights nor property were sold by the property owners. The "rights" were sold by the dominant tenant to the town. But the town changed them first to include paving and culverts and utilities and specifically says "public street".

I have both documents. The names are the same.

I appreciate the input and I won't bore you all anymore

It just seems very wrong to me, and I don't think that what I want would affect any future use of the easement that exists on my property, nor does it affect any parties in any negative way.

People who come here with legitimate questions who need legit help don't "bore" us. Helping is kinda what we're here for

 

[justalayman]

Back up a little. Who gave the deed to the town?

If it was given by ALL the servient tenents for the purpose of creating a public road, and the deed to the town so states, then the town has the right to do all the things you are complaining about.

I think you need local legal advice, since the wording of the various deeds, and who signed them, is critical.

No they don't. The dominant owners of the easement could transfer nothing more than they had. The op retained a right to use the easement since it did not grant exclusive use to the dominant tenant.

Personally I have my doubts the dominant tenants could transfer anything to anybody since they do not anything as a person but have rights to use the easement only by virtue of their ownership of the dominant tenement. The dominant tenant has no true individual rights but simply is allowed the use of the easement assigned to the dominant tenement.

 

[justalayman]

So, based on what was said the town has illegally taken control of the easement and unilaterally altered the terms of the easement. They simply cannot do that since the easement grants only the rights enumerated in the grant. All other rights as well as ownership are retained by the servient tenant.

 

[Karenj]

I sincerely appreciate the collective knowledge and opinions based on the information I have given you (I know it's difficult because of that).

I will add that I did read as much as I could on the subject of easements. But I found that each situation is so individual that I couldn't find anything similar.

I do feel that the town perhaps took advantage. I know we should all be informed and go to all of the meetings, but the truth is that we don't. And this all happened prior to us purchasing the house.

It still leaves me with the dilemma of my little unused portion of the easement. I don't believe that there is anything I can do, and I would like to just have a clear one acre for resale purposes. As you can see, explaining to a potential realtor/homebuyer would not be easy. We have no plans yet, but I'm sure we will at some point.

Once again thank you. I now know more than I did.

 

[Karenj]

No they don't. The dominant owners of the easement could transfer nothing more than they had. The op retained a right to use the easement since it did not grant exclusive use to the dominant tenant.

Personally I have my doubts the dominant tenants could transfer anything to anybody since they do not anything as a person but have rights to use the easement only by virtue of their ownership of the dominant tenement. The dominant tenant has no true individual rights but simply is allowed the use of the easement assigned to the dominant tenement.

Frankly, I had to read this a couple of times , but yes...that makes sense. I hadn't thought of that at all. Thank you.

 

[154NH773]

No they don't. The dominant owners of the easement could transfer nothing more than they had.

In this case, the dominant and servient tenants are the same people, so if everyone owing the road, and everone with rights on the road (meaning the same people) deeded the roadway to the town, then the town get all the rights. The town cannot have "added" conditions to a deed, it had to be signed by those with the rights to sign and therefore they agreed to the conditions.

What I'm thinking is that the deed to the town was signed by ALL, and the previous conditions were extinguished by the new deed. That may not be what happened, but without examining all the relevant deeds it is impossible to know from this post. That's why I recommend a local attorney's review.

This is not an unusual situation. The dominent and servient tenants on my private road recently deeded over the roadway to the town and all previous easements were extinguished. The town now has complete control over the use, repair, and maintenance.

 

[justalayman]

154NH773;3290535]In this case, the dominant and servient tenants are the same people, so if everyone owing the road, and everone with rights on the road (meaning the same people) deeded the roadway to the town, then the town get all the rights.

can we just say; NO.

very simply put: a dominant tenant is the owner of the dominant tenement which was granted an easement across another person's property.

The servient tenant is the owner of the servient tenement across which the easement was granted to the dominant tenant.

The servient tenant cannot also be a dominant tenant because you cannot grant an easement to yourself across property you own.

On top of everything else, the OP is the servient tenant and what they have been presented shows there was an easement. Unless that easement was still intact it makes no sense for a title company (or whomever did) to make note of it.

and again, even if the dominant tenants signed a deed to their rights (which I believe they cannot actually do since the rights are inherent only by virtue of owning the dominant tenement), no rights greater than they had been granted can be conveyed. Since the easement was not exclusive, the OP as the servient tenant would continue to have the right to use the easement as they desire as long as they did not inhibit the dominant tenants from using it in any way the grant allows.

Then we come to paving; unless the grant allows for paving, that is generally considered an improvement beyond the rights afforded an easement.

The town cannot have "added" conditions to a deed, it had to be signed by those with the rights to sign and therefore they agreed to the conditions.

but with the OP being the dominant tenant, there can be no added rights unless the dominant tenant allows for them.

What I'm thinking is that the deed to the town was signed by ALL, and the previous conditions were extinguished by the new deed. That may not be what happened, but without examining all the relevant deeds it is impossible to know from this post. That's why I recommend a local attorney's review.

actually OP may have a less expensive avenue here. If they purchased buyers title insurance, this would be seen as a claim against the title and they title insurer would investigate the matter.

This is not an unusual situation. The dominent and servient tenants on my private road recently deeded over the roadway to the town and all previous easements were extinguished. The town now has complete control over the use, repair, and maintenance.

again, it does not appear the servient tenant signed over any rights here.

 

[justalayman]

Back up a little. Who gave the deed to the town?

If it was given by ALL the servient tenents for the purpose of creating a public road, and the deed to the town so states, then the town has the right to do all the things you are complaining about.

I think you need local legal advice, since the wording of the various deeds, and who signed them, is critical.

My mistake earlier (but it doesn't really change anything I have said):

OP is the servient tenant. OP stated the names on the deed were those of the dominant tenants.

 

[LdiJ]

I am thinking of a bit of another angle here..

OP, what is the exact condition of the portion of the easement that runs behind your house? I understand that its blacktopped up to the corner of the lot, but describe what its like behind your house?

 

[Karenj]

I am thinking of a bit of another angle here..

OP, what is the exact condition of the portion of the easement that runs behind your house? I understand that its blacktopped up to the corner of the lot, but describe what its like behind your house?

It's just a dirt trail, barely wide enough for a car (I believe the original width on the deed is 25 feet). It's grown over. It goes about 2/3 of the property line (it's only an acre, but we're on the corner and so our lot is pie shaped, the wider part being in the back)
We would need to bring in equipment to grade it to match the rest of the yard (to give you a visual)

I did a little more research and it turns out that the town only purchased the rights up until my property begins. However, the dominant tenants (the people behind us) still own the rights to my little part.
One of my neighbors want to put a drive leading to the easement behind his house and the the town said no. That was part of my original question. Whether they were legally allowed to say no.

People do drive down the paved portion occasionally and turn around in my backyard. I've had a truck parked in my backyard watching the ducks on the pond. Walkers cut through constantly. We put a No Trespassing sign where the easement officially ends, but nobody really cares.

Just to give you an idea of my frustration.

 

[Karenj]

I think it's very interesting that the town should not have been able to change the conditions of the deed. I wasn't aware of that.

I suppose the town could say something along the lines of it being for maintenance and utilities, but it seems wrong to me.

It's like we have an acre each, but not really...

 

[154NH773]

OP is the servient tenant. OP stated the names on the deed were those of the dominant tenants.

No, the OP said the names on the two deeds (original grant and grant to the town) were the same.

No, neither the rights nor property were sold by the property owners. The "rights" were sold by the dominant tenant to the town. But the town changed them first to include paving and culverts and utilities and specifically says "public street".

I have both documents. The names are the same

So I will ask the question; Is the signer of the original easement deed the same as the signer of the deed to the town? Did that person own the OP's property at the time of both signings?

Also, the OP's new statement changes things somewhat;

I did a little more research and it turns out that the town only purchased the rights up until my property begins. However, the dominant tenants (the people behind us) still own the rights to my little part.

Then the only person the OP would have to deal with to extinguish the easement through his property would be the property that could use the OP's property for "ingress and egress", and that would seem to be only the property adjacent to his. If I'm reading this correctly, all the other properties that were subdivided off the dominent tenant's property have access via the town's easement which does not cross the OP's property. The OP should be able to extinguish the easement on his property with the consent of the one neighbor directly behind him.

This has been somewhat confusing and I may have misspoke in a prior post. The difficulty in assessing the legalities is compounded when new information continues to surface.