CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"
Brief Fact Summary. The Browns (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.
Issue. Whether the holder of a private road easement can cross the servient estate to access both the dominant estate and an additional estate that was acquired later if the two estates are used in such a way that there is no increase in burden on the servient estate.
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.
The benefit of the doctrine of balancing the equities, or relative hardship, is reserved for the innocent defendant who proceeds without knowledge or warning that his structure encroaches upon another's property or property rights.View Full Point of Law