§7.7 - Transfer of Easement Interests

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§7.7 TRANSFER OF EASEMENT INTERESTS

This section discusses the circumstances under which a transfer of an easement appurtenant to the dominant or servient estate will be effective.

(1) Easements appurtenant

An easement appurtenant is an irrevocable interest in land that has been obtained for duly given consideration. Bakke v. Columbia Valley Lumber Co., 49 Wn.2d 165, 298 P.2d 849 (1956). As such, it should and does pass to successors in interest by the conveyance of the property to which it is appurtenant. Cowan v. Gladder, 120 Wash. 144, 206 P. 923 (1922).

(a) Dominant estate

Easements appurtenant to the dominant estate serve the estate and are thus part of it. Therefore, unless limited by the terms of their creation and transfer, they are conveyed with the estate as an appurtenance regardless whether specifically mentioned in the instrument of transfer. Loose v. Locke, 25 Wn.2d 599, 171 P.2d 849 (1946); Cowan, 120 Wash. 144; Clippinger v. Birge, 14 Wn.App. 976, 547 P.2d 871 (1976). An easement appurtenant may also accompany an estate that is conveyed involuntarily by a judicial proceeding. Puget Sound Mut. Sav. Bank v. Lillions, 50 Wn.2d 799, 314 P.2d 935 (1957), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 926 (1958); Berlin v. Robbins, 180 Wash. 176, 38 P.2d 1047 (1934). Although Berlin and Puget Sound Mutual Savings Bank involve implied ways of necessity, the result absent this situation should be the same. A boundary adjustment will not be considered a transfer that would allow an easement to be transferred with it. Snyder v. Haynes, 152 Wn.App. 774, 217 P.3d 787 (2009). Of course questions would have arisen of use in connection with nondominant land. See §7. 2(3), above.

(b) Servient estate

A successor in interest to an owner of a servient estate takes the estate subject to the easements if the successor has actual, constructive, or implied notice of the easement. Mahon v. Haas, 2 Wn.App. 560, 468 P.2d 713 (1970). The successor in interest is charged with notice of the easement when the existence of the servitude is apparent on an ordinary inspection of the premises. Berlin v. Robbins, 180 Wash. 176, 38 P.2d 1047 (1934). Therefore, an easement is not binding on a subsequent bona fide purchaser without actual or constructive notice of the easement and when an exercise of "ordinary diligence" by the purchaser would not reveal the easement. Id. See also the discussion of recording of easements in §7.3(4).

(c) Apportionment (division)

...