Sale of Easement.

[Redah]

Texas.

A has an easement (specifically) to run a water line on B's Property.

A sells said Easement to C.

Can A still use the Easement?

Can A sell the Easement 'Again' to D?

Any input or Case Law would be greatly appreciated.


Thank you from Texas.

 

[tranquility]

It depends on they type of the easement and how it is written and if the other usage was envisioned or overburdens the purpose.

 

[Redah]

@tranquility,

The Easement was for A to run a water line and A sold it to C, to run another water line.

 

[tranquility]

I understand that, but that is not how it is written. Some run with the land. Some cannot be sold except when the land is sold. Some are specific about what the easement is for. The facts would be important as to if multiple water lines would overburden it. While you couldn't "sell" an easement that could be sold twice, you might be able to sell the right to use the easement to as many as you want until it materially changes the purpose of the easement.

In other words, it depends. It depends on too many factors we just can't get into here. (Including the exact wording of the easement and the reason it was created.)

 

[justalayman]

As tranquility states the specific granting language is required to give anything close to dependable but I'll say this;

In the most common situations where an easement is granted for utilities or such by one landowner to another (often adjacent) landowner. ,

A would not be able to sell the easement

If A could sell the easement, most commonly A would no longer have any rights to use the easement

If A could sell the easement, A would not be able to sell it to multiple parties.


No sense on chasing any suporting law until the actual facts are know. Until then it's speculation.

 

[justalayman]

The Easement utilized Streets and Alleys in a plated dis-incorporated town.
.

well, now you removed it from being anything close to a common easement such as I described (yes tranquility, I should have just let it be).




You are into some big time public property level easements and such. If there is more than one owners land involved, you will have independent grants for each of them that would need to be reviewed.


One thing about some easements on public lands; it is more common that an easement holder can rent or sell their rights or a division of their rights. Power companies are a good example of this. The power company is usually the easement holder along many roadways but they rent rights to telephone and CATV utilities to run on their poles, even though it is under the main easement afforded the power company by the municipality.



only a full review of all the pertinent documents can provide you anything close to a real answer.

 

[Redah]

The way we are looking at is: Does utility easement give the holder any right to sell some while keeping same for himself? Does a specific (for water) easement have 1st, 2nd 3rd and so on floors where it can just multiply?

Logic says no. But we have 14 attorneys involved and all they are doing is 'purposely' ignoring simple facts so it will go to appeal and make more $.

 

[justalayman]

there is no logic involved here. The contracts, grants, and law are.


I don't know what the issue is involving this but if there is an actual issue, it is time to hire a lawyer who can read all of the germane documents and try to help you. Maybe #15 will be the one that solves it all.

 

[Redah]

What I meant was that the "14 attorneys" were against me. I represented my self for %80 of the trial, I relied on quoting Law, Cases, Linguistic Intent and most importantly common "LOGIC". So far I won %95 of the case including damages. Yes. Logic has to be part of a Judge's decision.
My point: If it ain't commonly Logical it can't be a law, or, it needs to be challenged.

 

[tranquility]

What I meant was that the "14 attorneys" were against me. I represented my self for %80 of the trial, I relied on quoting Law, Cases, Linguistic Intent and most importantly common "LOGIC". So far I won %95 of the case including damages. Yes. Logic has to be part of a Judge's decision.
My point: If it ain't commonly Logical it can't be a law, or, it needs to be challenged.

From what you have written, it is not the "law" that should be challenged (unless the claim is of overburdening the easement), but the facts.

All we have is what you have said happened. Reading the actual deeds and sale would be important.

 

[Redah]

From what you have written, it is not the "law" that should be challenged (unless the claim is of overburdening the easement), but the facts.

All we have is what you have said happened. Reading the actual deeds and sale would be important.

A has an easement (specifically) to run a water line on B's Property.

A sells said Easement to C.

Can A still use the Easement?

Can A sell the Easement 'Again' to D?

 

[justalayman]

Maybe, maybe not. A full review of all the pertinent documents is required before any sort of answer can be suggested.

 

[LdiJ]

A has an easement (specifically) to run a water line on B's Property.

A sells said Easement to C.

Can A still use the Easement?

Can A sell the Easement 'Again' to D?

You want a yes or no answer to a question that cannot be answered yes or no without someone with legal knowledge knowing the entire story. You want the answer to be simple and its just not.

 

[Redah]

Maybe, maybe not. A full review of all the pertinent documents is required before any sort of answer can be suggested.

The deed for A: “together with all appurtenances thereto belonging and all stand-pipes, pipes, pipe lines, mains, water main lines ,well or wells, pumps tools, appliances, fixtures and equipment now in used in connection with well located on the land described particularly herein-above; SAVE AND EXCEPT, however the well, reservoir, storage tank, pump, equipment, water pipes and mains situated upon and so far as the same are situated upon, Block 161". (Block 161 is another property with a well that also served the town).

Thank you.

 

[Redah]

You want a yes or no answer to a question that cannot be answered yes or no without someone with legal knowledge knowing the entire story. You want the answer to be simple and its just not.

Let's say that you were arguing that it can be done, that a utility easement can be 'subdivided' into smaller mini-easements. How would you argue that?

Thank you.