Doctrine of merger/easement

[justalayman]

If only B has an easement over your property, only B can cross your property. The exception to that is if c and d were split from b (which gives them an easement by virtue of being a split of B) and if b, c, and, d were split from a and there is no other legal access to reach a public roadway a could be forced to go give any of b, c, or d an easement.

If d never had an easement and they have other legal access to a roadway, they have no right to cross your property and you would not be forced to grant one.

So, it sounds like there is nothing to be concerned with. Simply stop anybody visiting d that attempts to access via your property.


BUT in your original post you said d has an easement across your property. If that is true, then due to the doctrine of mergers that easement was extinguished and unless owner of d reserved an easement across a when he sold it, there is no easement for d to cross your land. You do not technically have to act as the action caused by the doctrine of mergers is automatic.

If there was an easement (not one reserved when he sold a) then you could file an action through court to have it officially terminated. That way there would be no mistake and have somebody fighting to use it.

 

[HRZ]

merely for d to say there is an easement over A's lands to d does not prove it is so....it better be on recorded paper ! Politely request d. Produce it ?