Doctrine of merger/easement

[Susie Q]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

5 years ago I bought a property in California that supposedly has an ingress/egress easement through it for a 3 acre property that is not adjacent to mine (owner has to cross over 2 other parcels to reach his). The previous owner of my house bought my property in 1984, at that time the 30 foot easement was in place for the 3 acres. In 1986 he also bought the 3 acres that was the dominant owner of the easement. I would like to know if the doctrine of merger would have terminated this easement, specifically since the properties are not adjacent to one another. The owner is trying to sell his 3 acres and I want to know if I have to honor that easement or if it has been terminated. He does have another easement up another road to enter his property. The 3 acres has been empty for 5 years with no-one entering it until it was put up for sale in June. Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

5 years ago I bought a property in California that supposedly has an ingress/egress easement through it for a 3 acre property that is not adjacent to mine (owner has to cross over 2 other parcels to reach his). The previous owner of my house bought my property in 1984, at that time the 30 foot easement was in place for the 3 acres. In 1986 he also bought the 3 acres that was the dominant owner of the easement. I would like to know if the doctrine of merger would have terminated this easement, specifically since the properties are not adjacent to one another. The owner is trying to sell his 3 acres and I want to know if I have to honor that easement or if it has been terminated. He does have another easement up another road to enter his property. The 3 acres has been empty for 5 years with no-one entering it until it was put up for sale in June. Thanks in advance for any help.

I am sorry, but I am not following that well. Too many "hes" and too many "3 acres". I am also not sure what you mean by dominant owner of the easement in your context.

However, an easement runs with the property and therefore yes, if there is an easement you have to honor that easement.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

If the easment is the only way to reach the property it is in all likelihood still fully in force.

 

[Susie Q]

I am trying to find out if, because the same person owned both the dominant property (property that owns the easement) and the servient property (property the easement is on) at the same time, would the "doctrine of merger" cause the easement to become null and void. If so, does the fact that the properties are not adjacent to one another make a difference??

 

[Susie Q]

It's not the only way, there is another easement that leads to the property.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

There is nothing you have written to make me think the easment would have been compromised especially because the two properties owned by a single person are not adjacent.

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

5 years ago I bought a property in California that supposedly has an ingress/egress easement through it for a 3 acre property that is not adjacent to mine (owner has to cross over 2 other parcels to reach his). The previous owner of my house bought my property in 1984, at that time the 30 foot easement was in place for the 3 acres. In 1986 he also bought the 3 acres that was the dominant owner of the easement. I would like to know if the doctrine of merger would have terminated this easement, specifically since the properties are not adjacent to one another. The owner is trying to sell his 3 acres and I want to know if I have to honor that easement or if it has been terminated. He does have another easement up another road to enter his property. The 3 acres has been empty for 5 years with no-one entering it until it was put up for sale in June. Thanks in advance for any help.

As you are apparently aware the unity of ownership of the dominant and servient estates extinguishes an easement by operation of law. Even if the easement was created as an appurtenance to the land it is thus extinguished. Consequently and contrary to LdiJ's amateurish effort at playing lawyer it is no longer appurtenant and is not revised or restored should the properties come into separate ownership.

But your effort in describing the various transactions related to the properties and their relationship to one another is too confusing to follow.

 

[LdiJ]

As you are apparently aware the unity of ownership of the dominant and servient estates extinguishes an easement by operation of law. Even if the easement was created as an appurtenance to the land it is thus extinguished. Consequently and contrary to LdiJ's amateurish effort at playing lawyer it is no longer appurtenant and is not revised or restored should the properties come into separate ownership.

But your effort in describing the various transactions related to the properties and their relationship to one another is too confusing to follow.

The properties do not share a common border.

 

[justalayman]

The properties do not share a common border.

It doesn't matter. What matters is whether each parcel is owned by the same entity.

In simple terms you cannot grant an easement to yourself when you are the owner of both dominant and servient tenements. Why would you have to grant an easement to yourself? The law realizes you don't and as such, the doctrine of merges terminates the easement. If he wanted an easement upon selling the servient tenement he would have to grant such upon divesting himself of the servient tenement.

 

[Susie Q]

It doesn't matter. What matters is whether each parcel is owned by the same entity.

In simple terms you cannot grant an easement to yourself when you are the owner of both dominant and servient tenements. Why would you have to grant an easement to yourself? The law realizes you don't and as such, the doctrine of merges terminates the easement. If he wanted an easement upon selling the servient tenement he would have to grant such upon divesting himself of the servient tenement.

Thank you for your reply and sorry for my confusing post...it is a complicated situation and hard for me to explain. Anyway, I realize that I will need to get an attorney but would you happen to know the steps to legally go about ridding my property of this easement? Thank you!

 

[Zigner]

Thank you for your reply and sorry for my confusing post...it is a complicated situation and hard for me to explain. Anyway, I realize that I will need to get an attorney but would you happen to know the steps to legally go about ridding my property of this easement? Thank you!

Your attorney will know the specific steps required in your situation.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

The way read it was and the property looked something like...

A-B-C-D

Where A had the only public access.

If the owner of D buys B the easement it shouldn't do away with the easment that C has through A & B nor should it the easment that D has through has through A & C.

Please let me know if I'm wrong. It has been a many years since I used my now expired Real Estate Licence and even longer since I passed the test.

 

[LdiJ]

The way read it was and the property looked something like...

A-B-C-D

Where A had the only public access.

If the owner of D buys B the easement it shouldn't do away with the easment that C has through A & B nor should it the easment that D has through has through A & C.

Please let me know if I'm wrong. It has been a many years since I used my now expired Real Estate Licence and even longer since I passed the test.

The post was confusing I think that if she explained it a bit better and explained WHY she wants to end the easement it might help us help.

 

[justalayman]

The way read it was and the property looked something like...

A-B-C-D

Where A had the only public access.

If the owner of D buys B the easement it shouldn't do away with the easment that C has through A & B nor should it the easment that D has through has through A & C.

Please let me know if I'm wrong. It has been a many years since I used my now expired Real Estate Licence and even longer since I passed the test.

If there are multiple dominant tenants the easement for the uninvolved tenements does not change. The easement For the dominant tenement that is also owned by the same entity as the servient tenement is extinguished across only the commonly owned serveint tenement. If either that servient tenement or that dominant tenement is sold, the seller would have to re-grant an easement in selling either lot.

 

[Susie Q]

The way read it was and the property looked something like...

A-B-C-D

Where A had the only public access.

If the owner of D buys B the easement it shouldn't do away with the easment that C has through A & B nor should it the easment that D has through has through A & C.

Please let me know if I'm wrong. It has been a many years since I used my now expired Real Estate Licence and even longer since I passed the test.

Sorry for the confusion, let me try this again:

I bought a property in California in 2012, (property A). At the time we were told that there was a 30 foot wide easement for ingress and egress on my driveway for a 3 acre property (property D) 2 lots away from mine. To get to property D you cross over properties A (street access) B and C through 3 different easements. Side note, only property B has an easement over my property A for the back of his land, C has no easement over A.

Previous owner of my property, A, purchased property D in 1986. In essence he owned both A and D, still needing to cross over B and C to get to his property D. Property D does also have another deeded easement to enter his property on a completely different neighbors lot, which he does not use.

A-B-C-D.

My question is, since previous owner owned both A and D, for 26 years, is the easement over property A terminated for property D due to the doctrine of merger? Owner of property D is now selling his 3 acres, which has never been built on and has been abandoned for 5 years. I do not want anyone driving on my driveway and if there is no easement I want to remedy this before it is sold. Thank you for your help.