I just ran across some easements that called themselves "perpetual easement"s from around the 1960s. The deed did not specify a purpose. One could probably speculate the purpose based on who the grantee was. But what do you guys think? Is an easement w/out a purpose more akin to full fee ownership, or no rights at all? (I'm sure money was exchanged)
The fee ownership would be in doubt, the usership would be definitely.
Perpetual would mean that it would have no expiration date unless noted otherwise.
The question of whether it would be a transferable right would need to be established.
0.02
Georgia DOT has changed the way they do things several times over the years. They used to get "Perpetual Slope Easements".
Andy
My understanding is that most easements are perpetual unless specifically stated to be otherwise, or subsequently relinquished in some way.
An easement is the right of use or enjoyment for a specific purpose over or upon the property of another (did I say that right?). If the purpose isn't defined in the grant, I don't believe any right could have been conveyed; certainly not all rights, which would be akin to fee; more likely, no rights at all since none were specified.
The above opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it.;-)
Don
I might guess that if the grantee was a utility which made use in a timely manner, the purposes could be inferred even though not stated and thus hold up to a challenge. Likewise a landlocked adjoiner needing access.
Dumb people do dumb things. Without a specific purpose or purposes defined in the document, it is probably too vague to hold up in court, if contested.
Actually, it is more akin to a fee ownership; but not really. An easement that doesn't state a purpose is fine. It usually will be deemed an easement for any reasonable use that benefits the attached parcel. The arguments are normally about "reasonable". If the use would destroy the servient parcel value to some unknown extent, then the dominant parcel might have to figure another way or pay extra, etc.. Courts are reluctant to void contractual arrangements. Courts were more inclined to void for vagueness in the past, so you might see discussion of it in the survey texts, but the trend in the recent past and present is to find a reasonable interpretation rather than void. If the client wants it restricted to specific uses you better write them in there (and even then the court may expand it).
My .04 and maybe not worth it.
If there is no use specified there is no easement. That is a very basic legal principal.
I read all the responses and thought about it a while. It would make sense to look at all the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the easement, and I would think that in most cases you would reach a pretty easy-to-reach solution. ie: a utility company purchases an easement and comes in and installs their utility. Or a neighbor purchases and easement and builds a road across the property and drives it regularly to access their property.
It certainly would make sense to me that a certain amount of common-sense would have to prevail in the determination, since the negligence in the writing of the easement is at issue. Also the fact that, when there is conflict in the interpretation, the writer of the contract or deed is usually ruled against. So if a utility company writes the easement and starts to use it for other than utility purposes and the servient tenement objects, then the courts may well rule in favor of the servient tenement. (and adversely if the servient tenement wrote the contract it could well go more in favor of the dominant tenement.)
I have run across the perpetual easement language in association with road construction. In our area construction easements were granted for cuts and fills for the duration of the construction and then terminated. Other easements obtained were specified as perpetual. It was a popular term in the 60’s and I think it got used loosely for many years. As Don said-
My understanding is that most easements are perpetual unless specifically stated to be otherwise or subsequently relinquished in some way.
A perpetual easement to nothing is just that. Sounds more like a letter of non-objection by a different name.
Bear Bait, I agree with you on the "Perpetual" part. My greater struggle is with the fact that no purpose of easement was expressed.
My training has been to never infer or state a "purpose" on a warranty deed transfer; or that deed can be interpreted to grant only an easement for that stated purpose. This situation is reversed where the deed calls it an easement, but does not define that purpose.
