Business Law 2nd Half of Cases from Course Packet

Business Law 2nd Half of Cases from Course Packet - Cases...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Cases from Course Packet Property Cintron v. Santiago Simone v. Heidelberg CASE : Simone v Heidelberg FACTS : Owners of adjacent properties on Staten Island enter into an agreement creating a reciprocal easement , in which a portion of each other’s property was to be used as a driveway. Many years and several owners later (at one point, both properties were owned by one person), the most recent owners face an issue over the easement. The plaintiff owns the servient property (163 Diggs), for which the deed makes no mention of a driveway easement. The defendant owns the dominant property (157 Diggs), for which the deed does reference the driveway easement. Tree, fence, and part of plaintiff’s deck now cover the easement area. Defendant has tree and fence removed to get access to a garage. Plaintiff commences action purporting that the easement was no longer in force or effect. Defendant counterclaims, seeking declaration that the easement remains in full force and effect and that the easement survived by necessity . Both parties moved for summary judgment. Initially rule in favor of plaintiff, noting that the easement was extinguished when the properties can under common ownership. This was reversed, concluding that the easement was recreated de novo when the properties were separated again, and both parties had knowledge (servient party was aware of an earlier easement). ISSUE : Is the easement extinguished or still active? HOLDING : REVERSED in favor of plaintiff REASONING : The easement was definitely extinguished when the parcels came under common ownership (single owner). Recreating the easement requires that it be written in the servient estate’s deed , not just the dominant estate’s deed. Also, an encumbrance may be effectively terminated when the title is passed to a new owner without including actual or constructive notice of the covenant, which happened in this case. Also, servient owner’s knowledge of an earlier easement was irrelevant to the fact of the extinguished easement. Defendant attempted to claim easement necessity, in which case it would have to be proven that the easement is “not as a mere convenience and must be indispensable to the reasonable use for the adjacent property”’ There is no evidence that the easement was absolutely necessary. Wilson vs. Palmer 163 Misc. 2d 936 (1995) - Supreme Court, St. Lawrence County TOPIC: Use of Easement FACTS: There is a deeded easement across both Wilson and Palmers land that provides right of way and is used by all parties. The defendant, Palmer and another property owner, added two speed bumps to the road in 1992. One on Palmers property and another further down that parties east of her on the road had to cross. The goal of the speed bump
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
was to slow people down. A sign that says "slow - speed bump" was also erected. One speed bump was 2 1/2" and the other 2". Whenever the road needed upgraded in the past (i.e. new gravel or repaired potholes) individual tenents would fix it or all parties using
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/08/2012 for the course AEM 3200 at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 14

Business Law 2nd Half of Cases from Course Packet - Cases...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online