I know the real answer it to consult with an attorney, but that will be somebody else's job. I just want to know if it's even possible.

Property owner A subdivided 40 acres, keeping a parcel for himself, selling a parcel to owner B, and another to owner C. A driveway runs across all parcels giving the owners access to the road. Owner B has an easement to cross owner A's property on the driveway, and owner C has an easement to cross both B and A's property.

Property owner D has a parcel that abuts owners B & C on the same line that the driveway runs. He approached all 3 property owners to see if he could obtain an easement to use the driveway as he wishes to build a home. He has an easement to build a driveway off of the other end of his property (he's not landlocked), but going in that way would be substantially more complicated and expensive.

Property owner B & C don't really care. Owner D is a nice enough guy. Property owner A really dislikes owner D, and says under no circumstance will they give or sell an easement to use the driveway.

Property owner D suggests to property owners B & C that he doesn't need that easement. B & C already have one, and as their guest, D can cross A to get to what B & C will allow him to use.

My gut feeling is that this isn't how this works, and without A granting permission, B & C can't either. If it's possible then D does indeed need to consult with the appropriate attorney, but if it's not possible there's no need to waste time or money.

What say you?

Not a re lawyer but was a licensed salesman/broker from 1978-2016 so I have some anecdotal experience.

Seller A probably protected his easement rights by stipulating owner C could not extend driveway. Fine print will hold the answer.

its all in the details as is every single property issue since time began. But all of the easements I have seen would not let A restrict in any way what B and ultimately C can do to get to their property.

Generally speaking. (and realizing it can be as different as the number of properties owned in America...)

If either B or C (or both) were landlocked without the access easement, then A cannot do anything to prevent them from access, and either one or both B & C would have to extinguishing the easement by deed for each as it applies to them, in the event neither are landlocked.

The person with the property where the easement is on, does not "own" the easement, and anyone "granted passage" of that easement is "guaranteed" it typically by deed, and it is recorded (and should be defined on the survey of the property where the easement is located).

So, if both B&C provide an access easement (deeded/recorded) across their property, then very unlikely A can stop D from using the easement in place as it "covers" allowed traffic for access to B&C and (ultimately) D.

If A granted easement and it is recorded for both B&C and neither/or B&C are not landlocked, A would have to sue/petition the court to extinguish the easement, and might be done, but all circumstances would have to be considered (would either B and/or C have to cross utilities/easements (create possible damage to utilities) or hazard any public streets, sidewalks etc?

(and this is a good time to remind anyone to pay for and obtain a good survey, review and understand it completely as well as the laws affecting property, before buying a property)

No, that may not be how this works. The way the OP describes the partition of this tract of land is that A subdivided his land into three parcels. He kept one (A) and sold the other two to B and C. I am therefore assuming that parcel "D" was not a part of this division. If that is correct then B and C may be able to grant D a right to use their easement over their parcel. I say MAY because the document creating the ingress and egress easement (usually a deed) could easily have prohibited any such action. In any case, the agreement of B and C for parcel D to use their respective easement would have no effect on parcel A...especially with the fact parcel D is not landlocked and has legal access to another road. All three parcels would have to agree on parcel D to use the road.

Now, If that assumption is not correct and parcel A did in fact create parcel D along with the others, then D would have legal recourse to force A to grant him the same right as B and C. This would all most likely have to be litigated but could get murky due to the fact parcel D is not landlocked.

Hope that helps a little. 35 years in title insurance in Seattle, Washington Examiner, Title Officer, Chief Title Officer and later AVP in charge of claims working with our corporate attorneys.

Something else to look into is what the county dictated or required when the parcels were developed. When doing commercial development here, most of the time the country/city will require certain cross parcel access to be incorporated into the development plan. Owner D 'may' have some recourse through the county and its requirements on the land.

quote:

A subdivided his land into three parcels. He kept one (A) and sold the other two to B and C. I am therefore assuming that parcel "D" was not a part of this division.

This is correct. Owner D's property backs up to B & C, and was never part of the A/B/C properties and their easements across one another.

quote:

Originally posted by Bassamatic:...

No argument.

It is why I stuffed the "sm disclaimers™" in my post about it being generalized and "check your local laws", cuz it can be mind boggling as to the actual working of the sausage making.

(so many people do not want to "pay the man", or commit to a little sleeve up-rolling and digging in for themselves. Me, on the other hand? I wanna know everything before I ______!!!)


FWIW, I just went through a lot of similar stuff when I bought this place in "Our Kansas" and could have lost 25% of the land I was under contract to purchase. (more than 4 acres).

(My prior experience was in home building with variances, utility easements, and the occasional issues that arose when building new construction on undeveloped land and the problems with bad platting/recordings uncovered during construction and closings, back in the early 1990s)

And the fact of what the other 4 land owners "thought" easements meant. Who "owned what", "who had rights", and "who could or could not do what".

FWIW, I ended up with nearly 100%, and will be able to file/contest a very tiny access easement for about $150, and according to counsel, it should be extinguished as it is no longer a need, will ever been used. (they have a separate driveway and the two pieces of land they have are now titled to a single owner).

I only need make the filing.

And, to re-cap, "Contact the experts in your area so it does not cost you a ton of money and trouble down the road."

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

And, to re-cap, "Contact the experts in your area so it does not cost you a ton of money and trouble down the road."

That is sage advice my friend.

Experience has shown me that every state has their own (and sometimes very different) set of statutes regarding the transfer of real estate. You are always best to talk to a good attorney that specializes in that area.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:


This is correct. Owner D's property backs up to B & C, and was never part of the A/B/C properties and their easements across one another.

OK then. Without looking at the documents, it would appear that parcel D would need all three tracts to agree with his request. Stuff like this can get nasty and often ends up court though.