(PA Specific)Easements and Right-of-Ways

It is my opinion that right-of-ways / easements serve parcels - not owners.

Think of this example. You create a multi-lot subdivision with private roads and record the plat. Do the right-of-ways (private roads) exist at the moment of recording? Probably. However, if the first lot sold is the farthest one then the right-of-ways have to exist at that point even though they are all crossing over the same owner.

This is the way things are done in Virginia - and everyone accepts it that way.

Dave, I understand that way of thinking IF the lots were going to be sold, however they are not.

Thanks for the input.

I don't think sold or not makes a difference. Just because they are currently under one ownership does not mean they will be tomorrow, or next week, or next month .......

That does not change my premise that right-of-ways serve parcels - not owner.

Easements are needed when properties are financed separately and released separately.

Generally, the rule of merger prevents an easement over a parcel where the ownership of both would be the identical entity.

From Black's:

"It is a general principle of law that where a greater estate and a less coincide and meet in one and the same person, without any intermediate estate, the less is immediately annihilated, or, in the law phrase, merged"

:good:

In WV there is case law that says exactly that.

I believe that you can create the easements, by plan, but cannot grant them to yourself.

Why would you grant yourself an easement? I slightly disagree with Dave Ingram because there are plenty of easements that run to individuals with a life estate.

The premise is that you can't grant yourself an easement (no need) but you can show it on a plan! In Dave's example, the plan shows the location of the easement (the roads) but nothing is granted until conveyed.

Is it possible the powers that be are confused and are asking for easements to be granted to the public for some reason?

Here's how I would view the situation:
1) Your client owns three parcels which are owned in the same name but since they have been maintained as separate tax parcels, pay separate tax bills AND they have not been merged in common title they are separate parcels.
2) you didn't mention but I am assuming that the individual parcels meet minimum Zoning standards and are not compelled to be joined by requirements of the zoning ordinance.
3) In Pennsylvania sub-standard parcels are not required to be merged by state law although some municipalities have such a regulation written into their local ordinances.
4) Therefore the municipality is justified in asking for access easements and/or fee simple access for the parcels without road access no matter what name is on the deed. As was stated above if the parcels can be sold separately they need to be treated as such.
5) Strike back, If the municipality requires the easements place a note on the recorded plan stating that the parcels are separate and independent. They can't have it both ways.

FYI in addition to my surveying and engineering I am a municipal Zoning Officer.

The point of the rule of merger is that the exact same ownership entity cannot own both a dominant and servient tenancy on the same parcel.

Are the lots stacked from the main road back or are they all along the main road?

Is the easement intended for the general public to go through all 3 lots?

Was there access granted to the cell tower? Is there a traveled cartway to the tower for maintenance?

Without further information, I would suggest a merger. If your client doesn't want to merge because he could sell one of the lots later by itself, you have a potential landlock. Right now you have property with no access (I'm assuming).

Thanks Carl, that is what I was looking for "merged". I found it in Knuds book also.

Thanks Again!

Thanks All for your input! Carl Z. gave me what I was looking for.

The lots meet Zoning code with existing features, meet criteria for Land Development, and have access to a State Road.

I agree Dave, but It will require a transfer. The present owner will be the grantee. that should get the plan showing the easements on record along with the new deed. A few bucks for deed prep.& recording. Just my opinion but I would do it.
😉

Are they existing lots. Can't see how they can make them do anything. If they are filing for a land development, then they start from scratch. Otherwise have all three lots merged by municipal approval. The only the whole will need one access.

I think that there is still some confusion going on in the thread relating to the doctrine or rule of merger, and the "merging" of the lots into one entity for tax or development purposes.

The concepts are completely different. None has anything to do with the other.

Couldn't think of the word but now comes to me. Most municipalities refer to combining the three into one as a consolidation and they would still have to jump through hoops to have it approved.