It is undisputed that the real property that Grove seeks to develop into a small condominium complex is owned by Grove subject to Columbia's easement to "lay, maintain, operate and remove a pipe line, or pipe lines." Although Columbia is the holder of the
dominant estate, the terms of the written easement require Columbia to maintain its pipelines "below cultivation, so that the Grantors may fully use and enjoy the premises, subject to the right of the Grantee to maintain and operate said line or lines."
Zerc is the owner of a parcel of land known as the
dominant estate. Immediately behind the
dominant estate is a swampy mangrove area owned by the RP.
An easement appurtenant is created for the beneficial use of a particular parcel of real property, which is referred to as the "
dominant estate" or the "dominant tenement." Correspondingly, the real property that is burdened by the easement is commonly referred to as the "servient estate" or "servient tenement." See, e.g., Newman v.
4th DCA 1981), the court confirmed, with respect to common law ways of necessity, "if at one time there has been unity of title, the right to a way of necessity may lie dormant through several transfers of title yet pass with each transfer as appurtenant to the
dominant estate and be exercised at any time by the holder of title" (subject, of course, to the application of the Marketable
The decades-old doctrine requires mineral owners - considered the
dominant estate - to accommodate the surface owner's existing use of the land if at all possible.
servitude owed to Anna's estate (termed the
dominant estate).
But what about a travel easement of specified width, where the easement does not include language preventing alteration of the easement without the consent of the
dominant estate, which is almost certainly the case for any easement drafted prior to M.P.M.
Often, this occurs upon the destruction of either the servient or
dominant estate. (53) In property law, the
dominant estate is the parcel benefited by the easement; the servient estate is the parcel burdened by the easement.
Thus, to the extent that dedication cases are applicable here, there has been a clear offer and clear acceptance of a dedication, such that FSR 339 has been dedicated to public use.<br />In summary, the Easement Deed clearly contemplated access by the public by its use of the term "highway purposes." Taking away the Forest Service's ability to control public access by forcing it to provide personnel to open and close defendants' gate each time a member of the public wants to access the National Forest in a vehicle is thus an unreasonable burden on the
dominant estate.<br />Gate unlawful<br />Because FSR 339 is not a private road, the Defendants are incorrect that Virginia Code 33.2-110(C) permits the erection of their gate.
William further claimed that Nero was in bad faith because Nero knew that he was already negotiating with the former owner of the
dominant estate when Nero intervened and bought the property himself.
The decades-old doctrine has traditionally required mineral owners - the
dominant estate - to accommodate the surface owner's existing use of the land if at all possible.