Easement Basics in Tennessee
Easements are a critical component of property rights and land use in Tennessee. While they often go unnoticed as part of the "bundle of sticks" that make up the rights to own real property, easements and the burdens they impose can make or break the value of a property.
An easement is defined as the right of an owner or other person to use another’s land for a particular purpose, with the most common meaning being to cross another’s property. Perhaps the most common example of an easement occurs when a landlocked parcel has been created by a division from a larger parcel. The owner of the landlocked parcel is given an express or implied easement over the adjacent land giving the owner the right to cross the adjacent parcel to access the road. Ordinarily, an easement for ingress and egress will run with the land and transfer with the servient tenement (the land burdened by the easement) to a new owner.
The creation and use of easements is governed by several specific legal doctrines, including such concepts as easements by necessity , easements by prescription, express easements, easements imposed by court order, and easements by implication. Given the unique factual scenarios that run the spectrum of real property arrangements, whether a particular right constitutes an easement, or whether it is enforceable, may vary widely.
In Tennessee, easements may be both revocable and irrevocable. If an easement is not permanent, the dominant tenement is said to have only a license to use the particular land. A license is revocable at will and becomes irrevocable only when the licensee has exercised his rights to take possession. Note that if the licensee has exercised his rights, he may become a tenant by implication. In such cases, a license-holder will have the legal rights and remedies typically accorded tenants.
As discussed above, most Tennessee easement cases arise as controversies over the interpretation of the easement, whether it has been terminated, or whether the easement-holder is exercising the easement within the boundaries of what is permitted by law and the easement itself.
Egress And Ingress What Are They?
Egress and ingress easements create the right of a property owner to pass on the property of another. Importantly, an easement is just a legal right; the property subject to the easement ("dominant estate") may itself contain no subject matter as to the easement (e.g., an owner may only have a "right" to exit his land via an easement). The property benefiting from the easement ("servient estate") may be subject to any number of other easements; conversely, the servient estate may contain only the single easement at issue.
Where an easement exists, the holder of the easement cannot be denied access to the specific points of ingress or egress contemplated in the easement agreement. In other words, the holder of an easement has the ability to come and go from the specified points, and other property owners cannot stipulate where, when, or how the easement holder can use the servient estate once it’s accessed.
These easements are governed by Tennessee Code Annotated § 69-4-804. An egress and ingress easement need not be in writing unless it involves a water source. Regardless, Tennessee law regulates both the manner and scope of such easements, and it imposes certain duties and liability for their maintenance, condition, and use.
Establishing Easements Requirements Under The Law
Easements in Tennessee will arise in one of three ways: (1) an express agreement between the parties, (2) an implied easement, or if not satisfied via those methods, then (3) via a prescriptive easement under Tennessee law.
Express Easement
Express easements will differ in complexity and length depending on the needs of the parties involved. For example, one individual may need a detailed easement regarding ingress and egress across an abutting property, while another may be satisfied with a simple note in the warranty deeds they are executing which states the land being purchased includes a right of ingress and egress across the existing roadways on a neighboring property. No specific form is required by law, but the written terms of the easement must be clear enough to indicate the parties’ intent. Ransom & Sims v. Brown, 143 Tenn. 135, 125 S.W. 1100 (Tenn. 1910). While it is not required by law, such easements are almost always drawn up by an attorney for the parties involved in the transaction.
Implied Easement
An implied easement arises when the parties to the deed are two different property owners. As such, an express easement would not be recorded at the time the original deed for the first parcel of land was prepared. A key case explaining the legal requirements is Lowe v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 579 S.W.2d 905 (Tenn. 1979). In Lowe, as a matter of law, an easement can arise if the following four conditions are met: The general rule in Tennessee is that an implied easement will be established if the above four requirements are met, and there is sufficient evidence to create a reasonable inference that the parties anticipated the implied easement at the time the parties originally separated the land. It is important to note that the implied easement must be necessary, and not merely convenient, to the land allegedly benefitting from the easement. A necessary implication does not require the use of the land as a way of accessing the other parcel of land, but merely allows the owner of the land benefitted by the easement access to his property without making the property effectively landlocked due to surrounding landlocked parcels.
Prescriptive Easement
A prescriptive easement requires continuous use of the land over a period of years such that the landowner could have created an express easement. As stated above, an express easement may not exist, but the prescription may be shown through the "hostile, continuous, uninterrupted, exclusive, and visible use of the alleged easement for a period of more than 10 years." McAbee v. Blevins, 254 S.W.3d 779, (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007). Such easements are rarely created in urban settings.
Common Issues and How They Are Resolved
Easement disputes are generally disputes between contiguous property owners. Because of the potential burden or tax on the use of property which easements place, easements are commonly defined in terms of the kind of use permitted, the extent and duration of the easement, and the conditions under which the easement can be revoked or modified. The contention between property owners is often that the easement owner is abusing his or her privilege or the servient owner is unreasonably restricting the use so as to make the easement unusable. However, any party can file suit and may not be held to prove the claims of abuse of privilege or penalize attempts to restrict use without proper justification. Action in Circuit Court is often the only way to untangle the knot, although this is the least desirable and most costly remedy.
Courts have often found when land use is at issue in easement disputes that the easement owner has no right to place structures on the servient land not specifically authorized by the grant. Careful legal drafting of easements trying to anticipate every possible situation cannot prevent all future problems, however. Rights of use should be thoroughly considered before attempting to draft such grants in order that the provisions adequately safeguard all parties against common problems. Should confusion, misunderstanding or abuse indicate the need for a court’s involvement in the interpretation of easement rights, the conflict resolution process usually begins with some attempt for the parties to mutually agree upon the resolution dispassionately and with regard to the real and not just perceived issues. While this may be laudable in concept, its availability and effectiveness in practice are dubious and frequently unrealizable.
Resolving easement conflicts through court action is far too commonly the choice when parties claim to have exhausted reasonable means of resolution through amicable negotiation to the point of futility or when they defend against summary judgment motions claiming that material facts are in dispute . The circuit court is the forum for resolving real property disputes because the entire real estate title is affected by the resolution. Courts have an obligation to resolve easement disputes with results preferably that include court orders expressing the rights and responsibilities and remaining conditions on the parties so as to avoid future conflict.
Easement disputes create conflict in the right to use property, resulting, as often as not, in interference between the neighbor owners. Disputes often arise about whether there has been an abuse of the easement owner’s privilege. Owners claiming abuse would argue that the actions of the easement owner exceed the permission granted in the easement. The easement use should not impact the servient estate more than necessary. The servient owner may argue that the easement owner’s actions amounts to interference with the right to the use of the servient estate. The use must stop at the boundary even if it is called an easement unless granted in express terms.
In short, if the easement is ambiguous, the parties must seek court guidance. The parties cannot usually agree on the interpretation of the easement, and there is often a dispute as to the reasonableness of the easement owner’s actions. The line between reasonable and unreasonable use is a fine one. On occasion the easement owner desires to enhance the purpose of the easement; that is not subject to interference without the court’s order. When the court has directed the parties to submit their dispute to mediation, the process is often less costly.
In addition to carving out easement rights with clarity and precision in the grant itself, the parties can anticipate the need to seek clarity, to modify the rights or to satisfy any issues with the use. The statute of limitations is applicable to easement disputes. The validity of easements can be challenged, and their scope can be modified when one party’s actions constitute an unreasonable burden on the servient estate.
Examples From The Courtroom
In the case of Cottrell v. McClain, 2014 WL 4629484 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 16, 2014), the Court dealt with an egress and ingress easement where the owner of dominant property attempted to exercise dominion and control over the servient property. The Court discussed the public policy behind this easement: it is essential that unoccupied lands be "habitable, useful, and accessible." The Court held that it doesn’t matter if the dominant estate egresses from and ingresses to the servient estate on a route greater in distance or less convenient than another route. However, the Court noted that the dominant estate does not allow the owner of the dominant estate to improve upon or pasture the land on the servient property.
A case discussing and upholding the right of ingress and egress easement is Stanley v. Blair, 195 S.W.3d 98 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). The facts of the Stanley case are that Stanley owned land in which he had a easement by necessity allowing him access to Old Highway 70 which was to the north of his property. Id. at 101. In 1994, he sold his property to the Ravens and the Ravens in turn sold the property to the Blairs in 1997 but the deed did not include the easement. Id. at 102. In 1998, the Blairs deeded a portion of its property to its son and the easement was stated in the deed. Id. However, there was no reservation for Stanley to cross the property. In 2002, the Blairs and Ravens entered into a correction deed which stated that the easement granted to Stanley also applied to the Ravens property and evidence of a survey was excluded. No survey was attached to the deed. Id. In 2003, the Blairs bought Ravens 1. Id. In 2004, Stanley filed suit against the Blairs and Ravens for trespass and injunction relief for building a road over a portion of his easement to Old Highway 70. Id. The trial court found in favor of Stanley and awarded compensatory damages and granted permanent injunction to allow him to traverse the entire length of the easement. Id. The Appellees filed a motion for directed verdict at the close of the Appellant’s evidence and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Id. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Id. at 113. The Appellees also appealed the denial of motion for summary judgment even after jury returned a verdict in their favor. Id. The Appellants’ main argument was that they expected the easement to attach to their land as well as the Ravens land. Id. The Court held that they could not be "legally bound by a mistake made by the parties who executed the surveys against their express intent to clearly describe the easement." Id.
A case included in Tennessee Law of Easements and Licenses: The Uniform Important Part of Real Estate Law written by Bill Smith discusses a dispute over an egress and ingress easement. See Guest v. Woodruff, 590 S.W.2d 249 (1979). In the Guest case, the appellants sought to establish prescriptive rights of ingress and egress as a result of having used a private drive located across a portion of the appellee’s property for a period of greater than 20 years. Id. at 250. The Chancery Court dismissed the appellants’ suit as a matter of law. Id. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. Id. The Court found that a testamentary gift of land subject to an easement of ingress and egress could not be revoked by the testator. Id. Also when there were two interpretations of a disputed fact, lessor weight to the declaration stating the disputed fact may be given. Id. at 251.
Tips for Property Owners
Thanks to the powers granted under the law, and even though an easement will at least sometimes be used for purposes other than to get from/to the public road, egress and ingress easements are generally the least complicated form of easement. Property owners using easements – whether with permission or otherwise – should focus on the use of that property for the purpose of preserving their rights and should avoid conflict, to the degree possible, with people you encounter. Obviously, a property owner’s first course of action upon encountering a person on their useful property is to be careful not to harm them. In addition, the owner should not allow the neighbor to assume absolute authority over the use of that land. For example, for the property owner who owns a driveway over a neighbor’s property as an easement, it is best to be sure that the easement itself cannot be terminated without a court order. Although it may be possible to perfect an easement by prescription, the right to access and use the property is absolutely dependent on a chief legal quality: that the property owner has continued in the same usage – without interruption – for 20 years. This may seem like a long time; however, if you are using a particular route across a neighbor’s easement, the time will go by quickly – so long as you are sure to keep using it.
Because easements can grant only certain uses, the best course of action for the property owner who uses easements is to always abide by the use a court allowed when the easement was created . Other important concerns are the easement holder’s maintenance and repair obligations. This is especially true if grantee has used a path on the property in such a way that it has worn a permanent path and altered the land. In such cases, an easement may disappear because the easement holder becomes a trespasser. If the easement holder must abandon the land, the best course of action where possible is to record the release of the easement in the county where the easement land is located. Examples of easement holders becoming trespassers are seen most often in situations where the easement holder continues to use the property, even after the easement has expired.
Property owners who grant easements must try to discuss the easement with the grantee and be clear in what is being given. This will be a frequent request of owners. Additionally, if the easement is not going to be for the purpose of going to a road or returning from the road or between properties, it is good practice to clarify the purpose in writing. Some easement holders desire to end easements. A common way this happens is where the easement holder moves away and fails to visit the land to use their easement. Even in these situations, the owner should never assume that rights under the easement have ended or that the easement has terminated, until another court order is issued.