Citation. 105 Wn.2d 366, 715 P.2d 514, 1986 Wash.
Brief Fact Summary. TheBrowns (Plaintiffs) brought an action to remove obstructions placed on a private road access to their properties parcel B and parcel C. The Voss family (Defendants) owned the servient estate, parcel A on which there was private road easement to access the dominant estate, parcel B. Defendants sought to prevent Plaintiffs use of that easement because the road was being used to access a third piece of property, parcel C, that was not part of the dominant estate.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Based on the equities, Plaintiffs would not be enjoined from using the easement to access parcel C, although it was a technical misuse of the easement which by express grant only to gave access the residence on parcel B.
Held. The Supreme Court of Washington agreed with the trial court and held that no injunction should issue based on the equities. Since the trial court found that there was no increase in burden on the servient estate since it was being used for the same purpose, and the Plaintiffs acted reasonably in the development of the property, the trial court acted within its discretion to deny the injunction, even though it was technically a misuse of the easement to access parcel B expressly.
Dissent. Justice Dore (J. Dore) found that use of the easement was improper under the Restatement of Property and that the injunction should be issued. Plaintiffs were responsible if parcel C was landlocked without an easement. In spite of the lack of hardship to the servient estate, J. Dore thought that the Plaintiffs should have to obtain statutory way of necessity to access parcel C.
Discussion. Nondominant property may also enjoy use of an easement, although technically improper, if it is found to be the more equitable solution in a proceeding for an injunction, which is based on the discretion of the trial court.