Ingress-Egress Easement from 1934

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

There is an easement described in the neighbors deed as being "for road purposes" (I assume right of way ingress-egress easement) over my driveway. The Masonic Temple Association (neighbor) behind my house has the easemnet rights. They use the drive as an alternate access to their property. The main entrance is off a major street on the other side of the block. It was deeded to them by one of the former owners of my house in approximately 1934 which was the time their original structure was built. Since then the temple has had significant additions to increase the size. They currently lease their parking lot to the City Hall, which includes the Fire Department and Police Department. They also have a day care as a tenant.

I have complained about the additional traffic from the City Hall and daycare. I was told that the easement rights could be transferred to the leasees without my permission or permission of the previous owners. I have also been told that the City would sue me should I try to extinguish the easement and that there is nothing I can do to restrict access.

Do I have any case to extinguish or restrict the easement?

There is an easement described in the neighbors deed as being "for road purposes" (I assume right of way ingress-egress easement) over my driveway.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, since it describes the easement for "road purposes", that does not mean strictly for ingress and egress. It means anything that a road can be used for.

You could go to court to try and extinguish the easement, but you probably wouldn't prevail. You might wind up paying their legal expenses. I've found that the courts have wide discretion when deciding on land use and the meanings of easements. You can take your chances if it really bothers you, but be prepared for a disappointment.

Since its been over 5 yrs (easement) your SOL on several levels.

Any chance to sue under unlawful expansion? I just can't believe an easement granted to the Mason Temple in 1934 carried the right which were extendable to lessors (ie daycare and city hall).

To be specific

Your question has been answered twice. You can sue anyone if thats how you wish to spend your time and money, but beware there is legal backlash for everything you do.

I doubt it is applicable but depending on how the easement was specifically granted, the guy may not be able to extend his rights to others.

There is also that the use is considered to be over burdening the easement which would allow you some rights to limit the use.

the only way to get an opinion that means much would be to take all pertinent documents to a lawyer that deals with real estate and seek an opinion. Then, if he gives you an opinion that you have a fair to good case to prevail in court, make a decision what you want to do.

If he says you have less than that as chances to win, I would learn to accept that which you cannot change.

so, is there a possibility that you could prevail and limit the use? yes, but that depends on a lot of facts we do not have and a judge agreeing with your claim if it is supported by those documents.

Yes, this ^^^

It is possible that the Temple has overburdened the easement (i.e., its use is not reasonable because it has leased out space) and that would be a ground for limiting its use but not terminating it. Get a lawyer to look at the relevant law and facts and decide how best to proceed.

It may be cheaper to buy them out of the easement, of course.

BTW, the city has no rights to sue you if you can reach agreement with the temple to extinguish the easement. The only rights they have are those that the temple has and has provided to them as a lessee. They could sue the temple for breach of contract if the parking lease somehow gives them rights to use this driveway.

drewguy said:

BTW, the city has no rights to sue you if you can reach agreement with the temple to extinguish the easement. The only rights they have are those that the temple has and has provided to them as a lessee. They could sue the temple for breach of contract if the parking lease somehow gives them rights to use this driveway.

Click to expand...

and seconded

Any chance to sue under unlawful expansion? I just can't believe an easement granted to the Mason Temple in 1934 carried the right which were extendable to lessors (ie daycare and city hall).

Click to expand...

You have received good advice. You are probably not in the best position on expansion of the burden on the easement. The day-care use of the building is almost definitely not an expansion of use, since that use probably was permitted at the time of the granting of the easement.
The use of the parking lot by others, and their use of the easement, may be an unreasonable expansion; although, the grant for "use as a road" might convince the court to allow it.
There is some caselaw in my state that allows an expansion of use based on subtle interpretation of the exact wording of the easement language. Putting your money on the courts is like pulling the handle of a slot machine. Good luck.