Easement location interpretation.

Why would an easement be mentioned in the document if the easement wasn't on the property?

Poor wording, but the only reasonable interpretation I can come up with, without seeing the plat and ground, is that it extends from the property line to 60 feet inside the property.

..as in the easement takes 60' OFF the property?

Who granted it or reserved it? Unless they owned both sides of the line that should narrow it down. What property do the title folks say is burdened? Is the easement being used, if so where?

Without a bigger picture I wouldn't really be able to speculate too much.

But the first thing that came to mind when I read this is that perhaps it is an appurtenant easement to the property (hence, not on the property)?

Typically A ROW Along A Property Line Is Centered

And is useable by both adjoining parties.

"A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY, 60 FEET IN WIDTH, OFF AND ALONG COINCIDENT WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF..." appears to be such a right of way.

However;

"A ROW encompassing the northerly 60 feet of Lot X" places it solely on Lot X.

So without further research I would render no immediate opinion.

Paul in PA

To clarify, this exact same wording is used several times in different deeds and along many lines to describe "excepting therefrom" and "together with" ingress/egress and utility easements both on the property for benefit of others and off the property for benefit of the subject parcel.

It is a very confusing statement that I believe was mis-interpreted some time in the past. The properties were sold and the physical access was created later. I think that at the time road (farm trails) use began they were just driving on the wrong side of the fence. What I really can't understand is why the easements were not centered on the property lines.

Typically A ROW Along A Property Line Is Centered

That made me think.

Perhaps "off and along coincident" does mean centered. Part (half) is off, CL is along, and part (half) is on. All the farm trails are right next to the fence where physically possible.

EDIT: The former surveys interpreted the easements to lie on the same side as the farm trails in every occurrence I have witnessed.

> "A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY, 60 FEET IN WIDTH, OFF AND ALONG COINCIDENT WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF..."

First question: Is that the wording of the actual dedicating document?

If so, according to several cases cited in Easements Relating To Land Surveying And Title Examination (Donald Wilson) the wording "..OFF AND ALONG COINCIDENT WITH.." would probably indicate the RW is adjacent to the property line. I suppose which side of the property line is the ambiguity.

One bit of evidence to take into consideration: who dedicated the easement. Let's say the easement is "off" the property; how could someone dedicate easement that didn't lie upon the property to which they had title?

I agree it's a big question mark. More research is definitely needed. Good luck.

> First question: Is that the wording of the actual dedicating document?
>
That is quoted, except in a few cases there is an additional "and" between "along coincident"

> If so, according to several cases cited in Easements Relating To Land Surveying And Title Examination (Donald Wilson) the wording "..OFF AND ALONG COINCIDENT WITH.." would probably indicate the RW is adjacent to the property line. I suppose which side of the property line is the ambiguity.
>
When I made the original post, that was my opinion also. Now I am not so sure.

> One bit of evidence to take into consideration: who dedicated the easement. Let's say the easement is "off" the property; how could someone dedicate easement that didn't lie upon the property to which they had title?
>
To the best of my knowledge they were created when the tracts were transferred from the parent tract. Therefor there would be a "Along With" to get you to the main road and "Excepting Therefrom" as a reservation for future sales.
>
> I agree it's a big question mark. More research is definitely needed. Good luck.

Paul in Pa has since made me doubt my original interpretation.

I don't agree with the statement R/Ws are "typically" centered. There is no wording indicating such in your description.

Let's say there are two properties sharing a common line. If the dominant estate (the easement) is a part of both properties; either by physical use, abstracted or documentation, I might agree the easement was originally indicated to be centered. But imho the wording does not specifically indicate a centering.

My first thought would be poor wording but I think it attempts to describe a row off the property and adjacent to it

> My first thought would be poor wording but I think it attempts to describe a row off the property and adjacent to it

I agree, or at least I did agree. The former surveys interpret it the opposite though.

Darn words!

If Adjacent Properties Share An Easement

That is not centered on the property line, the burdened property generally includes specific language to the benefit of or use of the other.

Here we have an access easement for the use of whom?

Paul in PA

> > My first thought would be poor wording but I think it attempts to describe a row off the property and adjacent to it
>
> I agree, or at least I did agree. The former surveys interpret it the opposite though.
>
> Darn words!

Yes, the easement is contiguous with and not contained within the boundary of the subject property. The servient estate is offsite.

Just because the previous surveyor was incorrect about the location shouldn't mislead you to make the same mistake. Pretty clear to me.

If Adjacent Properties Share An Easement

It is "non-exclusive", I interpret that to mean everybody and anybody, almost if not public domain.

Glen, Dang it!

Now you are changing my mind back. Are you saying...

"Along With" means it is off the property?
and
"Excepting Therefrom" means it is on the property?

The wording is exactly the same after those two entries up to the point where it defines the boundary line in question.

Glen, Dang it!

the key to me is the word OFF....

Glen, Dang it!

I would guess the intention is to create a 60' wide easement all on one side of the subject boundary.

Excepting therefrom...indicates to me an intent to reserve an easement so it would be on the granted parcel. (It should say "Reserving an easement...", not excepting which could be interpreted as reserving a fee interest but you have what you have).

Along with...indicates to me an intention to grant an appurtenant easement 60' wide off of the parcel granted. (Together with...is the standard phrase here).

Glen, Dang it!

> Now you are changing my mind back. Are you saying...
>
> "Along With" means it is off the property?
> and
> "Excepting Therefrom" means it is on the property?
>
> The wording is exactly the same after those two entries up to the point where it defines the boundary line in question.

Vern,

Initially, I took "off" to mean off the subject property, and "along coincident" to mean that it was contiguous with the boundary line".

Now that I look at it again, I need more information on the location of the access. Perhaps you provided it and I missed it. I suppose one could argue that the phrase, "OFF AND ALONG COINCIDENT WITH" taken as a whole, means that the easement is contained with the boundaries of the subject property and that it sometimes touches the boundary line and it sometimes off the boundary, or not touching it.

I see that Mr. Karoly has beaten me to the citation of "Reserving therefrom".

So where exactly does the physical evidence place the access?