Ambiguous Easement Note?

I Believe It Is Clear

The rear utility easement is 10' unless noted otherwise.

Front and sideline easements are 3'.
________
------------ denotes an easement, for width see the written statements.

Such easements are not necessarily for what is there now, but for what may come in the future. It is called PLANNING.

Paul in PA

I Believe It Is Clear

> The rear utility easement is 10' unless noted otherwise.
>
> Front and sideline easements are 3'.
> ________
> ------------ denotes an easement, for width see the written statements.
>
> Such easements are not necessarily for what is there now, but for what may come in the future. It is called PLANNING.
>
> Paul in PA

I don't think you read it right. It doesn't say anything about sideline easements being 3', for example.

But as far as the rear easement, my first inclination is exactly what you said. But someone else sees it differently, and I think they have a point. If the rear easement is shown as - - - - -, then is it noted as being only a 3' easement on each side (6' total)?

I don't know. It could have been worded better.

could have been more clear

10'

The denotation makes it 3', BUT the notes call out a 10', which trumps the 3'.

I agree it could have been worded more clearly.

I agree with RFB.

In your case I would show only the 10' DE/UE.

I have even come across drainage easements 2' wide, one foot on each side of a side lot line.

Can you imagine a 2' drainage easement? B-)

I Believe It Is Clear

how would you put that 3 foot easement along the rear of the lot on the other side unless it is owned by the same party? its definitely confusing verbiage

I Believe It Is Clear

Some of you guys didn’t like English in school, did you?

Here we start with a statement:
Unless otherwise noted there is a 10' drainage and utility easement along the rear of all lots;
I would say that is pretty straight forward and clear and is not ambiguous.

Then we have another statement:
there is a 3' utility easement along the front of all lots;
Again, pretty straight forward and clear.

Then we have another statement:
other drainage and utility easements are shown thus - - - - - - - and are 3' each side of the lot line unless otherwise noted.
So this one starts out with the word “other” and this means other than the rear and the front which have already been described and defined. Then it goes on to define the “other” easements that are 3’ each side of the lot line.

I really don’t think you can say that by showing an easement line across the front or rear of the lot, it moves the easement definition from what was specified to “other”. I would have to say that this is clear and unambiguous. Now if we had a note attached to a rear or front easement line which said “3’”, then I am with you all the way on that lot.

2' wide is enough if the pipe is in the ground. Good luck making repairs.

Enjoy the ambiguous easement. Was the drawing pre-cad? Any reason why they did not draw all those lines in place? Did a lawyer add the note to the plan as an afterthought? Perhaps a planner added the note.

I Believe It Is Clear

Actually, there is no easement drawn on the front of any lots, and on a few of the rear lots in this sub. So the assumption made was if no easement lines are shown, then there is a 10' rear and 3' front. If easements are shown as - - - - - -, then they are 3' ...

The - - - - - rear easements are shown where lots are back to back, mostly.

> 2' wide is enough if the pipe is in the ground. Good luck making repairs.
>
> Enjoy the ambiguous easement. Was the drawing pre-cad? Any reason why they did not draw all those lines in place? Did a lawyer add the note to the plan as an afterthought? Perhaps a planner added the note.

Yeah, it's pre-cad. Although it says all lots have a front and rear easement, there are no front easement lines drawn, and some lots don't have a rear easement line drawn. But one thing that is interesting is that were the - - - - - is shown, it doesn't appear that the drafter made any effort to make the rear easements appear wider than the 3' side easements.

Again, I'm really on the fence about this one ...

>Unless otherwise noted there is a 10' drainage and utility easement along the rear of all lots; ... other drainage and utility easements are shown thus - - - - - - - and are 3' each side of the lot line unless otherwise noted.

>Some lots don't have any rear easements drawn.
Those are not "otherwise noted" and are therefore 10'.

>along the rear of my lot there is drawn an easement that looks like thus - - - - - -.

So that is "otherwise noted" as 3'

It could have been said better. The word "other" is superfluous, but there is a reasonable interpretation, that I suspect the writer intended, referring to the ones not default width and this is the same meaning as if that word was not there. I can think of no other explanation for why some rear lines are dashed.

Is there anything about the terrain that would suggest a need for varying drainage widths, or anything about installed utilities that is different on those lots?

I believe that the written note has precedence over the graphical image.

> >Unless otherwise noted there is a 10' drainage and utility easement along the rear of all lots; ... other drainage and utility easements are shown thus - - - - - - - and are 3' each side of the lot line unless otherwise noted.
>
> >Some lots don't have any rear easements drawn.
> Those are not "otherwise noted" and are therefore 10'.
>
> >along the rear of my lot there is drawn an easement that looks like thus - - - - - -.
>
> So that is "otherwise noted" as 3'

Yep :good:

I Believe It Is Clear

Luke has provided a clear explanation on this. Verbiage trumps depiction. I second Luke.:good:

"Again, I'm really on the fence about this one ..."

Show BOTH easements so as to CYA. Let the title attorneys/company figure out what's what. B-)