Easement Clarification

[cosmo2]

What is the name of your state? California

I have 6 granted easements across my propery.

#1. An easement for public utilities, and incidental purposes, in favor of Southern Sierras Power Company. (1925)

#2. An easement for public utilities, and incidental purposes, in favor of the public, (1960)

#3 An easement for electric lines and telephone lines, and incidental purposes, in favor of Cal Elect & Power, (1963)

#4 An easement for public utilities, and incidental purposes, in favor of (named individuals but does "not" address ingress and egress) (1967)

#5 An easement for public utilities, and incidental purposes, in favor of (named individuals) as to an undivided 13/42nds interest (also does "not" address ingress and egress) (1970)

#6 An easement for ingress and egress, and incidental purposes, in favor of (named individual) (1986)

Q. A developer has purchased the property from one of the individuals named in easement #5. He intends to build 60 homes and turn the easement into a paved road stating that he has a right to make available the road to the general public because easement #2 states "An easement for public utilities, and incidental purposes, in favor of the public." Is he right?

In that case, why would easements #4,5,6 be needed?

Also, because easements #4,5,6 name individuals, do their easement rights carry forward with the sale of those properties?

And, although #4,5 do not specifically state ingress & egress for the individuals that are named but "for public utilities" is it understood that ingress & egress would be established for the individuals within the term "incidental purposes?" Only #6 appears to grant the individual ingress and egress.

Thanks.

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state? California

I have 6 granted easements across my propery.

#1. An easement for public utilities, and incidental purposes, in favor of Southern Sierras Power Company. (1925)

#2. An easement for public utilities, and incidental purposes, in favor of the public, (1960)

#3 An easement for electric lines and telephone lines, and incidental purposes, in favor of Cal Elect & Power, (1963)

#4 An easement for public utilities, and incidental purposes, in favor of (named individuals but does "not" address ingress and egress) (1967)

#5 An easement for public utilities, and incidental purposes, in favor of (named individuals) as to an undivided 13/42nds interest (also does "not" address ingress and egress) (1970)

#6 An easement for ingress and egress, and incidental purposes, in favor of (named individual) (1986)

Q. A developer has purchased the property from one of the individuals named in easement #5. He intends to build 60 homes and turn the easement into a paved road stating that he has a right to make available the road to the general public because easement #2 states "An easement for public utilities, and incidental purposes, in favor of the public." Is he right?

In that case, why would easements #4,5,6 be needed?

Also, because easements #4,5,6 name individuals, do their easement rights carry forward with the sale of those properties?

And, although #4,5 do not specifically state ingress & egress for the individuals that are named but "for public utilities" is it understood that ingress & egress would be established for the individuals within the term "incidental purposes?" Only #6 appears to grant the individual ingress and egress.

Thanks.

Q. A developer has purchased the property from one of the individuals named in easement #5. He intends to build 60 homes and turn the easement into a paved road stating that he has a right to make available the road to the general public because easement #2 states "An easement for public utilities, and incidental purposes, in favor of the public." Is he right?

A: No, the easement belongs to the people granted the easement just for the installation of public utilities (e.g., cable tv). Where does the developer think he has any rights to this easement?


Q: In that case, why would easements #4,5,6 be needed?

A: I couldn't tell you without a title search but that is irrelevant; they are there and will not be going away.


Q: Also, because easements #4,5,6 name individuals, do their easement rights carry forward with the sale of those properties?

A: Yes, the easements are a burden on the real estate.


Q: And, although #4,5 do not specifically state ingress & egress for the individuals that are named but "for public utilities" is it understood that ingress & egress would be established for the individuals within the term "incidental purposes?" Only #6 appears to grant the individual ingress and egress.

A: The only ingress and egress would be to maintain the utilities; not for general road traffic.

 

[cosmo2]

Regarding easement #5 the actual Easement Deed says, "An easement for public utilities and "public road purposes" over the....

I was looking at our Title Report and it did "NOT" have the portion that said "public road purposes." Does this mean he can build a road for the general public to travel on?

 

[seniorjudge]

Regarding easement #5 the actual Easement Deed says, "An easement for public utilities and "public road purposes" over the....

I was looking at our Title Report and it did "NOT" have the portion that said "public road purposes." Does this mean he can build a road for the general public to travel on?

Q: Does this mean he can build a road for the general public to travel on?

A: Yes.

 

[ohmy666]

Easement clarification

Question? If he only bought #5 then how do the others apply? I thought you couldn't put anything permanent on an easement, like pavement? They can come and go, but that doesn't mean it has to be a yellow brick road.

 

[seniorjudge]

Question? If he only bought #5 then how do the others apply? I thought you couldn't put anything permanent on an easement, like pavement? They can come and go, but that doesn't mean it has to be a yellow brick road.

Q: I thought you couldn't put anything permanent on an easement, like pavement?

A: You thought wrong.