Responsibility if only half of Driveway falls within easement?

[BernieGOMS]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Montana

So, 30 years ago two landowners of 10 acre parcels granted easements to each other, 15 feet on either side of the property line. This was with the intent that a driveway be created down the middle of the two parcels. Ten years later, only one of the landowners (A) was ready to develop their parcel. The adjacent landowner ( B) declined to participate in developing the driveway, or pay for it. Therefore, landowner A developed and constructed a driveway INSIDE land entirely owned by A, but this included a portion of the easement entitled to B. The driveway therefore falls entirely in land owned by A, but is HALF on the easement, approximately 5-7 feet.

Fast forward another 20 years. Landowner B has sold the 10 acre parcel to a new owner. Landowner B never developed the parcel prior to this, never utilized the driveway on parcel A, and never contributed to maintenance of said driveway. Now, the new landowner ( C) believes he is entitled to utilize the existing driveway( only half within the easement), or at least widen the driveway, removing trees on landowners A's property. Landowner A has never utilized the 15 feet on parcel B/C. Even to widen it, the driveway will remain entirely on A's property and significantly alter a protective barrier of trees.

Landowner A has proposed that C purchase the additional 7-10 feet from landowner A, and that the easement be widened. Landowner C has refused to purchase additional access, and insists that he has a right to simply remove the barrier of trees entirely on A's property and widen the existing driveway. The undeveloped parcel B/C has two other points of access, and the easement is not a necessity Options include landowner C placing his own driveway, either in or out of the 15 feet on his side, without removing trees on the A parcel, or utilizing an incomplete but already existing driveway in the middle of parcel B/C. Duplicating the full length of the driveway is clearly an expense landowner C wishes to avoid.

Landowner B does not dispute that the existing driveway is only half in the easement, and while he could walk it, ride a bike, or motorcycle down it, the width within the easement is not sufficient for a car/truck to pass.


1. Does landowner A have to allow landowner B to widen the driveway, all still entirely in landowner A's property, so that a car/truck can pass in the easement portion?
2. Does landowner B/C have any responsibility for previously incurred fees related to development and maintenance of the existing driveway, if granted use of it?
3. Does an easement ever essentially dissolve if not applied with the intended use? For example, was it nullified when landowner B elected not to participate in creating the driveway as intended, forcing landowner A to incur the expense entirely alone, which of course is why the driveway is well within A's property?

Of course, I'm A....

 

[FarmerJ]

Aside from looking like a homework question, I still have one for you, When this easement was created what does its wording say about sharing the cost of keeping it open ? What does the easement say about maintaining it ?

 

[BernieGOMS]

1980 Wording of Easement

" .... A perpetual easement and right of way to enter upon, construct, use and maintain a private road for motor vehicle traffic, in common with others, over, upon and across the described tract of land...."

It does read like a homework problem! Sorry!

 

[154NH773]

Short answer; the easement does not expire; C may widen the easement on A's property only 15' from the property line, staying within the granted easement.
A longer answer is that a court may be sympathetic and make C widen the driveway only in the direction onto his property.

 

[154NH773]

I may not have read your post closely enough the first time. It sounds like A built the original driveway partially on the easement (7'). That would mean that C could remove any trees on the 8 feet of A's property in the direction of the property line, and could use the 15' granted as an easement, but would not be allowed to utilize any portion outside of the granted 15 feet.
Fifteen feet would still not provide enough room for large vehicles to pass, and so a case might be made where a court would require C to widen the driveway onto his property.
In my opinion, C cannot be required to contribute to any previous construction or maintenance outside of any statute of limitations, but once using the driveway he would be liable for maintenance costs on the portion within the easement.
I successfully sued two landowners for sharing development costs of a shared driveway because the covanent in their deeds required them to contribute, but a third landowner did not have such a covanent and the court only found them liable for ongoing maintenance.
Be careful what you wish for. If C was required to pay for development on A's property, then A would be required to share if C decided to widen the driveway onto the easement on C's property.
I would discuss this with a local lawyer, and then sit down with C and discuss rights and options. Some type of maintenance agreement should be worked out also.