Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialsummary judgmenteasement
appealtrialsummary judgmenteasement

Related Cases

Miller v. State, 62 N.Y.2d 506, 467 N.E.2d 493, 478 N.Y.S.2d 829, 19 Ed. Law Rep. 618
View Case »
Haehlen v. Wilson, 11 Cal.App.2d 437, 54 P.2d 62
View Case »
Anderson v. De Vries, 326 Mass. 127, 93 N.E.2d 251
View Case »
Kimball Laundry Co. v. U.S., 338 U.S. 1, 69 S.Ct. 1434, 93 L.Ed. 1765, 7 A.L.R.2d 1280
View Case »
Commonwealth of Virginia v. Rives, 100 U.S. 313, 10 Otto 313, 1879 WL 16543, 25 L.Ed. 667
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

MacMeekin v. Low Income Housing Institute, Inc., 111 Wash.App. 188, 45 P.3d 570

Facts

In 1948, Mrs. Fine Rossellini Pettofrezzo built a house and a 200-foot long Driveway leading to it. MacMeekin began renting the house in 1950, relying on the Driveway for access. Over the years, both MacMeekin and Leon Hines, who owned a neighboring property, used the Driveway for access. In 1956, MacMeekin purchased Lot 11, which included the Driveway, but the deed did not grant him ownership of the Driveway itself. LIHI later purchased the property and sought to relocate the Driveway to develop housing, leading to the legal dispute.

In 1948, Mrs. Fine Rossellini Pettofrezzo built a house and a 200-foot long Driveway leading to it. MacMeekin began renting the house in 1950, relying on the Driveway for access. Over the years, both MacMeekin and Leon Hines, who owned a neighboring property, used the Driveway for access.

Issue

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment to LIHI and in concluding that MacMeekin did not have an easement implied from prior use, and could LIHI unilaterally relocate the easement?

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment to LIHI and in concluding that MacMeekin did not have an easement implied from prior use, and could LIHI unilaterally relocate the easement?

Rule

Easements cannot be relocated without the express consent of both parties, and the party seeking to establish an easement implied from prior use must show unity of title, apparent and continuous use, and reasonable necessity for the easement.

Easements cannot be relocated without the express consent of both parties, and the party seeking to establish an easement implied from prior use must show unity of title, apparent and continuous use, and reasonable necessity for the easement.

Analysis

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in dismissing MacMeekin's claim for an easement implied from prior use. The court noted that MacMeekin provided substantial evidence supporting the three key elements required for such an easement. Additionally, the court emphasized that the traditional rule prohibits unilateral relocation of easements without mutual consent, which LIHI failed to obtain.

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in dismissing MacMeekin's claim for an easement implied from prior use. The court noted that MacMeekin provided substantial evidence supporting the three key elements required for such an easement.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case, holding that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment and that LIHI could not unilaterally relocate the easement.

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case, holding that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment and that LIHI could not unilaterally relocate the easement.

Who won?

Gordon Bruce MacMeekin prevailed in the case because the Court of Appeals found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding his claim to an implied easement and that LIHI could not relocate the easement without his consent.

Gordon Bruce MacMeekin prevailed in the case because the Court of Appeals found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding his claim to an implied easement and that LIHI could not relocate the easement without his consent.

You must be