U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-14-2018, 11:33 AM
 
1 posts, read 249 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

Two adjoining properties have an easement, that has never been used, for ingress/egress along a shared property line (15’ on each side).

Both properties have public road access on one side. For many years both properties were owned by the same person and the easement would have terminated based on the doctrine of merger.

When the properties later were sold the easement still appears in title reports etc. although it would have been terminated. One of the property owners insists the easement is still in place.

What would it take to make the termination of the easement “official”? Do we need to file an action to quiet title?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-14-2018, 12:19 PM
 
Location: Rochester, WA
3,840 posts, read 2,063,984 times
Reputation: 10587
If they are still legally separate parcels, why should the access easement be terminated? Who wants it to be terminated?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2018, 03:13 PM
 
Location: Raleigh NC
7,781 posts, read 6,144,732 times
Reputation: 6905
a qualified attorney in your locale will know the answer. probably the attorney that discovered this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2018, 03:16 PM
 
Location: planet earth
2,940 posts, read 1,033,679 times
Reputation: 6696
I find this interesting. I want to know more about the "Doctrine of Merger."

I have a property with an easement and tried to have it analyzed by title company personnel to no avail.

Then hired an "expert," who also had no clue.

No one mentioned a "Doctrine of Merger."

I am interested in your claim that the easement should have been "terminated."

Can you flush out the details a little more so it is more understandable?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2018, 03:19 PM
 
Location: planet earth
2,940 posts, read 1,033,679 times
Reputation: 6696
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merger...(property_law)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2018, 04:59 PM
 
Location: OH>IL>CO>CT
4,755 posts, read 7,523,209 times
Reputation: 6360
Another article that more directly addresses easements like the OP's

https://www.kjk.com/2016/03/07/real-...ine-of-merger/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2018, 12:58 AM
 
8,768 posts, read 10,377,224 times
Reputation: 13824
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyupnorth View Post
Two adjoining properties have an easement, that has never been used, for ingress/egress along a shared property line (15’ on each side).

Both properties have public road access on one side. For many years both properties were owned by the same person and the easement would have terminated based on the doctrine of merger.

When the properties later were sold the easement still appears in title reports etc. although it would have been terminated. One of the property owners insists the easement is still in place.

What would it take to make the termination of the easement “official”? Do we need to file an action to quiet title?
The easement can still exist if the single owner included the easement in the sale. That basically revived the old easement by a stated agreement of the seller of the individual properties, who was the same person. So, the easements existed but was terminated by the doctrine of merger but established anew by a written instrument reestablishment that easement. Now, if there was no language addressing the easement, it's probably dead. You'll want to consult with a qualified attorney.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2018, 06:56 PM
 
2,678 posts, read 2,783,780 times
Reputation: 3111
Is the easement for access of one property thru the other? Or for utilities to cross the parcels or access a third parcel 'behind' the other two? Either of the two later cases would not negate the need for an easement if the first two parcels were combined.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top