DARRELL BARRON AND ELIZABETH BARRON, APPELLANTS,
v.
LOUVERNE H. BARRON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Darrell and Elizabeth Barron sought to establish an easement for power lines and access over Louverne Barron's property to reach their five-acre parcel. The trial court found an express easement existed in the parties' deed from a common predecessor but chose a route that required the Barrons to traverse third-party land for approximately a mile. The appellate court affirmed the existence of the easement but reversed the location chosen, remanding for the Barrons to construct a road along the northern edge of the appellee's property.
An express easement exists for access to the five-acre parcel based on the deed from the common predecessor in title. However, the easement must be located across the northern edge of appellee's property as proposed by appellants, rather than the route chosen by the trial court, because the deed-granted easement should have as its terminus the parcel to which access was granted without requiring traversal of third-party land.
[1] An express easement, even if granted in general terms, may be established by deed.
[2] An easement is not extinguished if the route used to access the dominant estate traverses a third party's land, provided the easement's terminus is the dominant estate.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The easement with which appellee's property is encumbered properly has as a terminus the parcel to which appellants were granted access.”
Establishes that the easement must end at the property it was designed to serve, not extend further onto third-party land.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants sought to establish an easement for electric power lines and access to a five-acre parcel over land belonging to appellee. A deed from a co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Easement Extinguishment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants petitioned the court below to declare an easement for electric power lines and for ingress and egress to a five-acre parcel over land belonging to appellee. The trial court found that a deed from a common predecessor in title had created an express easement, albeit in general terms, and rejected appellee’s claim that the easement had been extinguished. The parties presented the trial court with two possible means of access to the parcel in question. We affirm the trial court’s decision in every respect except for the location of the easement.
While the location chosen by the trial court has been the route employed by appellants in the past, it involves an extended traverse of a third party’s property. After crossing appel-lee’s property, appellants have been driving approximately a mile over a third party’s land in order to reach the five-acre parcel. The easement with which appellee’s property is encumbered properly has as a terminus the parcel to which appellants were granted access. The road across appellee’s land that appellants have been using leaves her land some distance from the parcel to which the easement was granted.
In the proceedings below, appellants proposed that the easement be located across the northern edge of appellee’s property. Because this is the only route proposed by the parties which reaches the parcel in question without traversing a third party’s land, we conclude that the case should be remanded and appellants be given an opportunity to meet the condition of constructing and maintaining a suitable road which would, under the terms of the deed granting the easement, perfect their right to an easement along that corridor. The portion of the existing road that crosses appellee’s land is longer than the alternative appellants propose.
On remand, appellants should be given a reasonable time, preferably a date certain, after which time the easement will be extinguished if appellants fail to construct a suitable roadway. Although we leave to the trial court the decision as to the width of the easement, the easement should run aoross the northern edge of appellee’s property, as proposed.
Accordingly we AFFIRM in part, REVERSE in part, and REMAND.
ERVIN, MINER and BENTON, JJ., concur.