BernieGOMS
Junior Member
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....
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....