Implied grant v. Implied reservation

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
sknight323
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:39 am

Implied grant v. Implied reservation

Postby sknight323 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:24 pm

Is there even a difference between the two? I feel retarded.

sheD
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:41 pm

Re: Implied grant v. Implied reservation

Postby sheD » Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:59 am

Reservation benefits the grantor (original owner) while grant benefits the grantee (new purchaser) of a subdivided lot. Some jurisdictions don't allow implied reservations, with the rationale that if the grantor wants some benefit from the transfer, it is her obligation to put it in the deed. If that's the case, the only way the grantor could get an implied easement is through necessity.

sknight323
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:39 am

Re: Implied grant v. Implied reservation

Postby sknight323 » Thu Apr 19, 2012 11:21 am

Thanks. So to make this clear, a common owner of a lot can make an implied grant of an easement through either necessity or prior use if he splits the lot up to two separate owners? You can only reserve something for yourself by necessity in some jurisdictions, e.g., I have a lot and sell half of it to A. But now I am landlocked and need to cross A's lot to get to a road (assuming the elements of an easement by necessity are met), this is an example of implied reservation by necessity?

apl6783
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2011 12:41 pm

Re: Implied grant v. Implied reservation

Postby apl6783 » Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:05 pm

In some jurisdictions, if it's an implied RESERVATION, and the easement was implied from prior use, then strict necessity is required (instead of the normal reasonable necessity). This is the case in Texas.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Armylaw101, electriklemon, jroman2, Kahlo, Voynich and 6 guests