CASE QUESTIONS: INTERESTS IN REAL PROPERTY
Dianne v. Wingate, 84 So.3d 427 (Fla. App. 2012).
1. Who owns the dominant easement estate? Explain.
Gloria Dianne and Freddie Wingate live next door to Adrian and Charline Wingate.
Adrian and Charline received an easement over and across their land from Freddie
and Peggy Dianne on 2/1/1999. On 10/21/2009, Freddie and Peggy installed speed
bumps and concrete barriers across the paved easement Adrian and Caroline used to
get to their home. Accidents occurred when cars tried to pass over speed bumps.
Charline sought summary judgment and a permanent injunction against Freddie and
Peggy's easement speed bumps.
2 Who owns the servient easement estate? Explain.
The dominant tenement belongs to the easement holder, whereas the servient tenement
belongs to the landowner. The servient estate owner has all rights to the property except for
the easement and may use it as long as it does not unduly interfere with the legitimate
dominant use.
3 Explain the precedent on easement barriers and the court’s requirements for
proof of unreasonable interference with an easement owner’s rights.
Common law underpins easement barrier precedent. It is generally prohibited for the servient
estate owner to build a barrier that unreasonably burdens the easement holder. Defining
"unreasonable" interference relies on the facts of each instance.
An easement allows you to utilize someone else's land for a certain purpose. The original
owner retains legal title and limited use. Writing an easement and specifying its position in the
property deed are legally binding. ³. A party with an easement can utilize its land reasonably.
However, the use of the easement holder may remain unaffected. Such interference may
expose the party to damages for wrongful interference. ⁴. Each case's circumstances determine
the court's proof of undue interference with easement rights.
Generally, a plaintiff must prove the defendant's acts were unreasonable and caused harm to
their easement use. ⁵. An owner who builds a fence across a road easement may be liable for
unjust interference. If the property owner installed a gate across the road, they may not be
accountable. The Washington Court of Appeals ruled in Zonnebloem v. Blue Bay Holdings
(2017) that certain affirmative actions are not necessary for easement holders to use their
easement. Thus, it is crucial to seek the advice of an expert on how to handle an easement
problem.
Key References
(1) Easement - Definition, Types, Processes and Examples - Legal Dictionary.
https://legaldictionary.net/easement/.
(2) Property owner is not necessarily liable for wrongful interference ....
https://www.gillettlawfirm.com/blog/property-owner-is-not-necessarily-liable-for-wrongful-
interference-with-easement-for-declining-to-affirmatively-facilitate-easement-use/.
(3) CACI No. 4902. Interference With Secondary Easement - Justia.
https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/4900/4902/.
(4) Easement: Definition, Types, and Examples - Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/easement.asp.
(5) 3 Main Types of Easements On Property | Propertylogy.
https://www.propertylogy.com/academic/types-of-easements/.
(6) Interference With Secondary Easements Does Not Require Physical Act ....
https://www.rhrc.net/interference-with-secondary-easements-does-not-require-physical-act/.
(7) Interference with the rights conferred under a right of way.
https://www.lindsaytaylorlawyers.com.au/in_focus/a-reminder-of-the-rights-conferred-under-
an-easement/.
(8) What Are The Remedies for Interference With Easement?. https://schorr-law.com/what-
are-the-remedies-for-interference-with-easement/.
Joseph Brothers Company, LLC v. Dunn Brothers, LTD, 148 N.E.3d 1260 (Ohio App. 2019).
1. Explain the two property rights issues in this case.
The first disagreement involves an easement, which allows someone to traverse or use
someone else's land for a certain purpose. Marianne Jennings. Real Estate Law (2017). The
first dispute is whether Dunn Brothers received an exclusive easement. Joseph Brothers, LLC
v. Dunn Brothers, LTD, 148 N.E.3d 1260 (Ohio App. 2019).
2. Why is the language in the parties’ original agreement so important in this case?
The beginning of the agreement's wording is crucial since it defines the parties' rights and
responsibilities. How "exclusive" and "non-exclusive" were defined in connection to the
easement and signage requirements shaped the court's ruling. Joseph Brothers, LLC v. Dunn
Brothers, LTD, 148 N.E.3d 1260 (Ohio App. 2019). The phrasing of a contract can influence
the interpretation of rights and duties.
2. Why is the sign permitted to remain?
Dunn Brothers retained a sign on site under a lease, but the court ruled it was a separate
property right, despite the lease's termination.
3. Does the presence of another access road to the property influence the court’s
decision? Why?
Furthermore, the existence of an additional access road to the land contributed to the court's
decision. The court determined that Dunn Brothers' easement was inclusive rather than
exclusive due to the existence of another access route. This implies that the court also granted
permission to Joseph Brothers Company to use the access road. In light of the fact that there
was another access route, it was clear that the parties did not intend for the easement to be
exclusive to Dunn Brothers. The original agreement's language was consistent with this view,
which was consistent with the language.
IN RE Trackwell, 520 B.R. 788 (W.D. Mo. 2014).
1. Explain what the sale agreement provided.
In the instance of IN RE Trackwell, 520 B.R. 788 (W.D. Mo. 2014), the sale agreement
stipulated that the buyer, Mr. Smith, would purchase the cattle chute that was owned by the
debtor, Mr. Trackwell. According to the terms of the agreement, the livestock chute was a
piece of equipment that was not permanently attached to the ground. There was a transaction
that took place through an auction, and the person who was conducting the auction portrayed
the chute as being portable.
2. Could the cattle chute be used anywhere?
It was possible to use the livestock chute at any location. In the sale agreement, the cattle
chute was referred to as a piece of equipment that could be moved about. Due to the fact that it
was not permanently attached to any particular spot, it was able to be moved and utilized in a
variety of different locations depending on the circumstances.
3. Why does the representation of the auctioneer about the chute not matter?
Since the legal interpretation of the sale agreement is based on the written provisions of the
agreement rather than on verbal representations made during the auction, the representation
that the auctioneer made regarding the chute is irrelevant. In this case, the court determined
that the written provisions of the sale agreement made it very obvious that the cattle chute was
portable and not attached to anything. Therefore, the auctioneer's verbal claims regarding the
chute's mobility did not affect the legal meaning of the agreement.
Ground Control, LLC v. Capsco Industries, Inc., 214 So.3d 232 (Mississippi 2017).
1. Outline the parties involved in the contract and their relationships.
Capsco Industries, Inc., and Ground Control, LLC were the parties involved in the contract
negotiation process. Capsco Industries, a general contractor, subcontracted Ground Control, a
landscaping company, to carry out landscaping work on a building project. Ground Control
was responsible for the landscaping work.
2. List all of the theories Ground Control used to recover for its work.
In order to recuperate for its efforts, Ground Control utilized numerous different theories:
Contract Theory: Ground Control asserted that it had a contract with Capsco Industries for
the landscaping work and that Capsco Industries had violated this contract by failing to pay
for the work that was completed.
Quantum Meruit: Ground Control also argued that it should receive compensation based on
quantum meruit, which is the reasonable value of the rendered services.According to the
Third-Party Beneficiary Theory, Ground Control asserted that it was a third-party beneficiary
of the contract that Capsco Industries had with the property owner.
What testimony resulted in a contradiction to Ground Control’s claim for
damages?
The owner's testimony contradicted Ground Control's damages claim. He
testified that the company was paid for all its services except for the additional
work not in the contract. This contradicted Ground Control's allegation that it
was never compensated for its efforts.
Why can’t Ground Control recover under a contract theory?
Due to its invalid contract with Capsco Industries, Ground Control cannot recover under
contract theory. The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the putative contract was
unenforceable since it did not identify the work or price.
5. Why can’t Ground Control recover under a third-party beneficiary theory?
Ground Control was not an intended beneficiary of Capsco Industries' contract with the
property owner, so it cannot recover under a third-party beneficiary approach. The court
found that Ground Control was not expressly benefitted by the contract and that the parties
did not intend to benefit Ground Control.
6. What is the public policy issue that arises because Ground Control was not licensed?
Due to the fact that Ground Control did not possess a license, there is a public policy problem
that arises. This issue refers to the enforcement of contracts and the protection of the public
from service providers who are either untrained or unwilling to be honest.
Withington V. Derrick, 572 A.2d 912 (Vt. 1990).
1. What deed language created the confusion about ownership?
In Withington V. Derrick, the property boundary wording in the deed confused ownership.
The deed called the border "the Haff line" which had two meanings.
2. To whom does the trial court award title and why? What does the appellate court do?
Due to the fact that the language of the deed's language was unequivocal and explicit, the trial
court decided to grant the title to the Derricks. According to the court's interpretation, "the
Haff line" refers to the border line of the property that Haff had previously possessed.
On the other hand, the administrative court overturned the trial court's ruling. The appeals
court came to the conclusion that the wording used in the deed was, in fact, ambiguous and
that it was necessary to take into account extrinsic evidence in order to ascertain the genuine
intentions of the parties at the time that the deed was completed.
3. In reviewing the deeds and the ambiguities, what rules does the appellate court follow?
After reviewing the deeds and the ambiguities, the appeals court adhered to a number of
standards.
Rule of Reasonable Interpretation: The court shall read the deed reasonably and in
accordance with the parties' apparent meaning.
If there is ambiguity in the deed, we should interpret it against the drafter.
If the deed's language is vague, the court may use extrinsic evidence to assess the parties'
purpose.
3. What is the significance of “Haff” versus “Hoff”?
"Haff" and "Hoff" relate to separate property lines, which is why they matter.
"Haff" is the property line of Haff's former land, whereas "Hoff" is another. A
misunderstanding between these two names in deed wording caused a
misunderstanding regarding whether the property line was supposed to represent
the border. The lawsuit hinged on this uncertainty.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
