What are the Basic Principles of Easement Disputes?
Disputes involving easements are a common real property topic in Washington that frequently results in litigation. An easement is a property right separate from ownership that allows the use of another person’s land without compensation.
Creation and Requirements of Easements.
Easements in Washington are interests in land. Under the state’s statute of frauds, express easements must be created by a deed. To be valid, the deed must be in writing, signed by the party to be bound, and acknowledged before an authorized person. RCW 64.04.010 – .020. However, no specific words are required to grant an easement; any language that clearly and with sufficient definiteness shows the intent to grant an easement is legally sufficient. Under Washington law, express easements cannot be orally modified. Easements can also be created by implication or prescription:
Implied Easements: An implied easement is based on the principle that a grant of land is impliedly accompanied by all things necessary to its reasonable use and enjoyment. Establishing an implied easement requires proving three elements: (1) unity of title and a subsequent separation by grant of the dominant estate, (2) apparent and continuous use, and (3) reasonable necessity for the proper enjoyment of the dominant estate. Unity of title and subsequent separation are absolute requirements.
Prescriptive Easements: A prescriptive easement is created by the open, notorious, and continuous use of another’s land adversely to the owner for a prescriptive period of 10 years
Transfer, Notice, and Interpretation.
An easement appurtenant is an irrevocable interest in land obtained for consideration. These easements become part of the realty they benefit and, unless limited by the terms of their creation, follow possession of the dominant estate through successive transfers, including subdivision of the estate. A successor in interest to the servient estate takes the property subject to an existing easement if they had actual, constructive, or implied notice. Recording the easement with the county auditor provides constructive notice to successors in title.
When interpreting an express easement, courts apply the rules of contract interpretation. What the original parties intended is a question of fact, determined by viewing the deed as a whole. If the plain language is unambiguous, intent is determined without extrinsic evidence If the language is ambiguous, courts may consider extrinsic evidence regarding the circumstances of the property, the parties’ intentions, and their prior conduct and admissions.
Relocation and Alteration of Easements.
Washington strictly adheres to the traditional common-law rule regarding the relocation of easements. Under this rule, an established easement cannot be relocated or altered without the mutual consent of the owners of both the dominant and servient estates, regardless of how the easement was originally created.
Washington appellate courts have explicitly rejected the minority reform approach, which would allow a servient owner to unilaterally relocate an easement at their own expense if the change does not significantly lessen the utility of the easement, increase burdens on the easement holder, or frustrate its purpose. Washington courts reject this approach to preserve uniformity, stability, and predictability in real estate transactions, and to prevent endless litigation over unilateral relocations.
However, under the Relocation of Easements Act, RCW 64.65.020, a servient estate owner may relocate an easement only if the relocation does not materially:
- Lessen the utility of the easement;
- Increase the burden on the easement holder’s reasonable use and enjoyment;
- Impair an affirmative, easement-related purpose for which it was created;
- Impair the safety of the easement holder or others entitled to use it;
- Disrupt the use and enjoyment of the easement during relocation, unless the owner substantially mitigates the duration and nature of the disruption;
- Impair the physical condition, use, or value of the dominant estate or its improvements; or
- Impair the value of the collateral of a recorded security interest holder, a recorded lessee’s interest, or any other recorded real property interest in either estate.
Additionally, a servient owner is entitled to impose reasonable, equitable restraints on a right of way to prevent a greater burden on the servient estate than originally contemplated, provided the restraints do not unreasonably interfere with the dominant owner’s use.
Termination of Easements.
The termination of easements is highly disfavored under Washington law. The extent and duration of an express easement are determined by the terms of the grant, and they can only be extinguished in specific situations, such as:
- A release by the easement holder via an instrument complying with the statute of frauds;
- Adverse use of the easement by the owner of the servient estate;
- Abandonment of the easement; or
- The merger of the dominant and servient estates.
An easement cannot be terminated for a violation of its terms if the agreement does not expressly provide for the remedy of termination and instead outlines other remedies. Furthermore, the omission of a registered express easement from a short plat does not, by itself, extinguish the easement.
Qualifications and Limitations.
The rules governing easement disputes in Washington are heavily fact-dependent. For instance, while a court may not relocate an easement for the economic benefit of a servient estate against the dominant owner’s will, an easement holder may make necessary alterations to render the easement effectual if the surrounding property’s conditions are lawfully changed so as to interfere with its enjoyment.
Additionally, while a dominant estate owner holds property rights in the easement, they do not have exclusive use of a way of necessity established by private condemnation under RCW 8.24.010, meaning the servient estate owner may still utilize the property.
In conclusion, easement disputes—ranging from express and implied creation issues to contentious battles over unilateral relocation—constitute a major category of real property litigation in Washington. Washington law strongly protects the integrity of established easements, requiring mutual consent for relocation under traditional common law, maintaining a strict statute of frauds for express grants, and heavily disfavoring easement termination.
The lawyers at Beresford Booth have extensive experience dealing with land use matters. Contact us at info@beresfordlaw.com or by phone at (425) 776-4100. to see how we can help you.