Marsha holds an express easement that allows her and the members of her household to use Greg’s swimming pool at any time that they want. One day, Marsha gets tired of sharing the pool with Greg and she offers Greg $20,000 to sell her the pool outright, along with the land that it’s on. Greg agrees and they complete the sale. A year later, Greg misses the pool and asks Marsha to sell the pool back to him for $25,000. Marsha agrees and the sale goes through. At this point, does Marsha have the right to swim in the pool? Yes; because her original easement was never extinguished Yes; because although her easement was extinguished, it was reinstated when she re-acquired the property No; because her easement was extinguished when she acquired the pool No; because she made $5,000 on the deal, so that compensated her for the loss of her easement

Abbott owns an easement that allows him to walk over Costello’s property to access a street on the other side. However, at one point, Abbott purchases a different easement from a different neighbor that allows him to access the same street. Thereafter, he stops using Costello’s easement. Does this cause his easement to walk over Costello’s property to be extinguished? Definitely not; because an easement can only be extinguished by expressed intent to abandon the easement by the holder Probably not; because mere non-use is not enough to be considered an abandonment of an easement Probably yes; because Costello’s buying another easement shows an intent to abandon the first easement Definitely yes; because non-use of an easement causes it to become extinguished

Derrick received, in a conveyance, land that was surrounded by land that was owned by Sandra. Because of this, Derrick received an easement by implication to use a path through Sandra’s property to access the outside World. Years after this acquisition, Derrick purchases a different easement from Sandra to use a wider path of ingress and egress (coming and going) to and from the outside World. What happens to Derrick’s original easement by implication? It terminates, because an easement by implication expires after one year It terminates, because its original purpose has been mooted by the purchase of the new easement It still exists because non-use does not terminate an easement It still exists, because it is more convenient to have two methods of ingress and egress than to have one such method

Marsha holds an express easement that allows her and the members of her household to use Greg’s swimming pool at any time that they want. One summer, Greg fails to properly maintain his pool. As a consequence of this, the pool becomes filled with algae and becomes completely unusable. As a result, the next summer, Greg has to completely take out and later rebuild the pool. After this is done, does Marsha still hold her easement to swim in the pool? Yes; because it was Greg’s fault that the pool was destroyed Yes; because an easement cannot be destroyed simply because the servient tenement is destroyed No; because the easement was destroyed when the servient tenement (the pool) was destroyed No; because Marsha should have made sure that the pool didn’t fall into such a state of disrepair

© 2003 - 2024 National Paralegal College