Top Law Schools

When an estate is divided e.g. life estate and a remainder, can an easement with the life estate bind the remainderman?

Sorry to be so late but just hit this reviewing my notes and don't know!

I feel horrible for you and dont have an answer cuz I'm a 0L but heres a bump to keep you at the top of the forum posts on the homepage

thanks lol

I actually feel fine about the rest of the exam but am doing last minute exams and don't know!!!

Easements bind whoever is in possession of the property. They "run with the land".

Sorry, just to be clear: when a present possessor creates an easement, they are bound and run with the land. But if the estate is divided, can a present possessor bind the other owner of the estate - so a future interest.

So the example is: A has a life estate in the land. B has a vested remainder in the land. A allows a prescriptive easement with their neighbor C. Is C bound by the easement? Or would C only be bound by the easement if both A and C had agreed?

just an fyi, A can't "allow" a prescriptive easement. An easement by prescription is analogous to adverse possession. Easements normally must be deeded. But if an easement is created, it runs. The remainderman may be able to sue the life estate holder for waste, also.

I've been following this as I felt bad for OP's situation..

Can someone please reassure me that these posts will make sense once I'm in law school?

BlueDiamond wrote:I've been following this as I felt bad for OP's situation..

Can someone please reassure me that these posts will make sense once I'm in law school?

Unfortunately, Property never makes sense. But don't worry, it's curved and it won't make sense for anyone else either.

creatinganalt wrote:When an estate is divided e.g. life estate and a remainder, can an easement with the life estate bind the remainderman?

Sorry to be so late but just hit this reviewing my notes and don't know!

The actual answer is no. Express easements made by the life estate holder CANNOT bind the person who owns the Fee Simple. The life estate holder can only give away what he has and that is a life estate so at the end of the life estate the easement will go away and prescriptive easement does not apply because it was not hostile, estoppel may if serious money was spent fixing up the easement (not sure if this would even occur as the title holder did not grant the license and didn't have a reasonable expectation that the license holder would use funds in reliance on promise) , necessity may apply if occurred at severance of at one time joint properties and necessary (depends on strictly or not and jurisdiction).

But if a Life Estate holder just offers someone an easement that easement by itself does not bind the fee simple part of the estate and ends when the life estate does.

npe wrote:

BlueDiamond wrote:I've been following this as I felt bad for OP's situation..

Can someone please reassure me that these posts will make sense once I'm in law school?

Unfortunately, Property never makes sense. But don't worry, it's curved and it won't make sense for anyone else either.

(*pounds head quietly on the table, anticipating Property final*)

BlueDiamond wrote:I've been following this as I felt bad for OP's situation..

Can someone please reassure me that these posts will make sense once I'm in law school?

Fellow 0L here. Don't worry. I'm pretty sure they're just making up words to prank the 0Ls.

Unitas wrote:

creatinganalt wrote:When an estate is divided e.g. life estate and a remainder, can an easement with the life estate bind the remainderman?

Sorry to be so late but just hit this reviewing my notes and don't know!

The actual answer is no. Express easements made by the life estate holder CANNOT bind the person who owns the Fee Simple. The life estate holder can only give away what he has and that is a life estate so at the end of the life estate the easement will go away and prescriptive easement does not apply because it was not hostile, estoppel may if serious money was spent fixing up the easement (not sure if this would even occur as the title holder did not grant the license and didn't have a reasonable expectation that the license holder would use funds in reliance on promise) , necessity may apply if occurred at severance of at one time joint properties and necessary (depends on strictly or not and jurisdiction).

But if a Life Estate holder just offers someone an easement that easement by itself does not bind the fee simple part of the estate and ends when the life estate does.

THANK YOU. Makes sense.

Property is a bit nuts. It just has so much doctrine.

creatinganalt wrote:

Unitas wrote:

creatinganalt wrote:When an estate is divided e.g. life estate and a remainder, can an easement with the life estate bind the remainderman?

Sorry to be so late but just hit this reviewing my notes and don't know!

The actual answer is no. Express easements made by the life estate holder CANNOT bind the person who owns the Fee Simple. The life estate holder can only give away what he has and that is a life estate so at the end of the life estate the easement will go away and prescriptive easement does not apply because it was not hostile, estoppel may if serious money was spent fixing up the easement (not sure if this would even occur as the title holder did not grant the license and didn't have a reasonable expectation that the license holder would use funds in reliance on promise) , necessity may apply if occurred at severance of at one time joint properties and necessary (depends on strictly or not and jurisdiction).

But if a Life Estate holder just offers someone an easement that easement by itself does not bind the fee simple part of the estate and ends when the life estate does.

THANK YOU. Makes sense.

Property is a bit nuts. It just has so much doctrine.

Implication easement may apply too (quasi-easement). But that and necessity would've applied against the Fee Simple holder anyways. Basically the life estate had no impact.

The only debatable one is really estoppel. If you consider estoppel as just preventing the Fee Simple holder from revoking the license it would likely work, but if you look at why estoppel shouldn't apply to the Fee Simple holder as he didn't grant the license it likely wouldn't work - I have no case law on this. Policy wise though, allowing this would allow a life estate holder to extinguish most of the rights of the Fee Simple holder. Basically can offer easements to surrounding property that takes away all value of property and when they rely on it and claim estoppel the fee simple becomes impaired.

I hate property - everything about it.

Unitas wrote: I hate property - everything about it.

haha i know what you mean, esp. when it came down to easements and servitudes. i mean, who really understands whether garrisons run with testaments of land, and whether the fee simple holder or the complicated faxer have any proverbial rights to death estate taxes that arise from malfeasance. i swear, it never made any sense to me...gl 0Ls!

DoubleChecks wrote:

Unitas wrote: I hate property - everything about it.

haha i know what you mean, esp. when it came down to easements and servitudes. i mean, who really understands whether garrisons run with testaments of land, and whether the fee simple holder or the complicated faxer have any proverbial rights to death estate taxes that arise from malfeasance. i swear, it never made any sense to me...gl 0Ls!

DoubleChecks wrote:

Unitas wrote: I hate property - everything about it.

haha i know what you mean, esp. when it came down to easements and servitudes. i mean, who really understands whether garrisons run with testaments of land, and whether the fee simple holder or the complicated faxer have any proverbial rights to death estate taxes that arise from malfeasance. i swear, it never made any sense to me...gl 0Ls!

Oh shit, I didn't even notice the hidden complicated faxer issue in OP's hypo. I guess you'd have to analyze horizontal privity under the takings clause (this was the dissent in Kelo, right?). Haha, so glad I'm done with property.

Bumi wrote:

BlueDiamond wrote:I've been following this as I felt bad for OP's situation..

Can someone please reassure me that these posts will make sense once I'm in law school?

Fellow 0L here. Don't worry. I'm pretty sure they're just making up words to prank the 0Ls.

We all wish were just making up this stuff..........

BlueDiamond wrote:I've been following this as I felt bad for OP's situation..

Can someone please reassure me that these posts will make sense once I'm in law school?

probably not but I wouldn't read too many of these on tls

stick to actual exam hypos

....which will also not make sense

Bumi wrote:

BlueDiamond wrote:I've been following this as I felt bad for OP's situation..

Can someone please reassure me that these posts will make sense once I'm in law school?

Fellow 0L here. Don't worry. I'm pretty sure they're just making up words to prank the 0Ls.

I loved Property and it was my highest 1L grade. But then, if you've seen me on the forums, you know that I love dismantling technical issues and generating excessively detailed 6,000-word responses to simple-sounding questions. Property is the kind of thing I enjoy, which means it should probably terrify most of you.

Easements and issue preclusion were the two things on exams that most resembled the LSAT. Just like logic games, and sketching them out made it so much easier.

vanwinkle wrote:

Bumi wrote:

BlueDiamond wrote:I've been following this as I felt bad for OP's situation..

Can someone please reassure me that these posts will make sense once I'm in law school?

Fellow 0L here. Don't worry. I'm pretty sure they're just making up words to prank the 0Ls.

I loved Property and it was my highest 1L grade. But then, if you've seen me on the forums, you know that I love dismantling technical issues and generating excessively detailed 6,000-word responses to simple-sounding questions. Property is the kind of thing I enjoy, which means it should probably terrify most of you.

Bet you could get into Harvard with this kind of talent.