> The note is definitely not clear whether or not that side also gets an easements. Any answer is just assumption and interpretation.
I disagree, Pseudo. The note is entirely clear. What is making this confusing is that we're forgetting there is a distinct difference between "regulatory interests" in property and "property rights" which include easements.
Zoning ordinances are a regulatory interest and, yes, there is a potential for confusion with building setbacks on corner lots. That's why most zoning ordinances specifically address setbacks on corner lots. I can agree with your argument about ambiguity if we are talking about a zoning ordinance.
We can't, however, let a regulatory definition of a "side yard, rear yard or front yard" create confusion when we define the limits of an easement right which has been conveyed by a plat or by a deed. The conveyance document (i.e. the plat) clearly grants an easement along the "rear and side lines." That clearly excludes "front lines" which follow the street right of way. Corner lots only have one side line, not two. Seems pretty straight forward.
Let's advocate for argument's sake by supposing that one of the "front lines" on the corner lot is really a "side line." Then the easement would exist along one of the "fronts" but not both. Which one? There would be no way to determine the location without some extrinsic evidence to separate the true "front" from the "side." If that's the case, then the conveyance would be patently void with respect to the corner lot's front line. Hence, the reason that we have the question raised in this post in the first place.
I don't see any reason to go there. The language is clear. There is also no reason to "interpret" or "assume" anything.
The easement follows the "rear and side lines."
JBS
That clearly excludes "front lines" which follow the street right of way. Corner lots only have one side line, not two. Seems pretty straight forward.
That's pretty much where the assumption and interpretation sets into your post. You’re assuming that a side lot line that happens to adjoin a right of way is a special line that shouldn’t be considered a “side”, but rather a “front”. You seem to agree that using words like “side” and “front” on corner lots is ambiguous for zoning, put perfectly clear on an old plat easement notes? Huh? I happen to agree with you in the result (see my above post), but I’m not going to say the plat note isn’t ambiguous. Had a utility company in the past utilized that strip, based on their interpretation of “side”, I think you’d have a hard time convincing anyone that it wasn’t a reasonable interpretation of a poorly written plat note.
>You’re assuming that a side lot line that happens to adjoin a right of way is a special line that shouldn’t be considered a “side”, but rather a “front”.
Well, it's certainly not a "side" line if it adjoins the right of way. Therefore, there would be no easement along it. It's clearly not a "side" line.
>You seem to agree that using words like “side” and “front” on corner lots is ambiguous for zoning, put perfectly clear on an old plat easement notes? Huh?
Zoning ordinance definitions are typically for "front yards," "rear yards" and "side yards" A regulatory definition for zoning, used to bring confusion and ambiguity to the language, doesn't work. It's like we're trying to make a problem out of clear language by injecting a zoning regulation in a civil law application.
>I happen to agree with you in the result (see my above post), but I’m not going to say the plat note isn’t ambiguous. Had a utility company in the past utilized that strip, based on their interpretation of “side”, I think you’d have a hard time convincing anyone that it wasn’t a reasonable interpretation of a poorly written plat note.
I doubt that the landowner would have much trouble at all convincing the utility company they needed to compensate him for the taking of property rights without compensation. They'd be better off purchasing the right than attempting to defend a tenable position.
If there is an easement along the corner lot's "side" line, where would the easement end? Where would it end if there was a radius on the corner? Where is the need for the utility line along the street right of way on one side, when there is no need on the other side or on the other lots within the subdivision? Sounds too "unreasonable" to be true.
Maybe this will help bring some reason to the "problem."
The easement is along the "rear and side lines."
JBS
Yes, I'm well aware that you can contrive odd-ball situations where "side" and "rear" are not clear. I even mentioned that in an earlier post, so your sketch isn't breaking any new ground here.
Look at it this way, if you were to take 12 "lay-people" to a corner lot house, that has clear frontage on one of the streets (front door and driveway) and ask them to identify the front, rear, and side of the property, how many do think would conclude the lot has "two fronts, one side, and one rear"? I'd guess none. I'd guess almost everyone would identify "two sides, one front, one rear". To lay people, the side of house is the side of house, regardless of whether it’s adjacent to a street. That's what you're dealing with. What you (and I) have concluded is merely our opinions based on our knowledge that surveyors (who make such notes on plats) consider any portion of the property that touches a street to be a "front". Everyone else would probably identify the "front" to be only the side with the driveway and front door. I doubt if the utility company I mentioned didn’t want to pay for the easement they'd have trouble finding a juror who doesn't agree with the surveyor definition of front, rear and side.
> Yes, I'm well aware that you can contrive odd-ball situations where "side" and "rear" are not clear. I even mentioned that in an earlier post, so your sketch isn't breaking any new ground here.
>
I'm still not buying your argument, Pseudo. It doesn't matter how "complex" or how "simple" the situation is. It also doesn't matter what a "lay-person" thinks. This is a conveyance document we're talking about which has simple language in the conveyance. There is only one interpretation which does not result in confusion. The orientation of the house doesn't matter as the house wasn't in place at the time the plat was recorded. The location of the utility lines and the "habit" of some to place utility lines where ever they choose doesn't matter. As the sketch above and below both show, there are "side" lines, "rear" lines and there are "street" lines. The language doesn't grant any easements along the streets.
The side line easements allow utility installation extending to the rear lines in every case. Easements along the street (which clearly aren't included in the conveyance language) would begin and end nowhere and would inequitably burden corner lots and not others.
The rules of construction were meant to resolve ambiguities, not create them.
JBS
Sometimes government regulation makes life soooo much easier; for example when the definition of front, side, and rear lines for planning and development purposes are codified.
I'm not sure how you can conclude that a "lay persons" opinion of what "side", "front", and "rear" , mean isn't important. It's very important, since most likely they are the one's you'd have to convince that a corner lot has "two fronts", against what they probably already think they know. Most people can identify a side of a property and do not differentiate between sides that adjoin other lots, and sides and adjoin a right of way. You're opinion and interpretation of the plat note doesn't mean much, unless you can convince other people you are right.
And, I'd like to say that your sketches are really making my point, that using words like "side", "front", and "rear" in easement notes is ambiguous and requires interpretation and divining the intent of the plat. What if, for the cases you sketched, the note said, "10' easement along rear lines, 5' easement along side lines" (which is a common note on old plats around here)? Then what?
> And, I'd like to say that your sketches are really making my point, that using words like "side", "front", and "rear" in easement notes is ambiguous and requires interpretation and divining the intent of the plat.
This sure doesn't seem to be much of a problem, until a surveyor over-thinks it. Granted, a picture is better than words, but, that's not what we're given in this post. It's pretty obvious that the orientation of the houses can have no effect on the construction of the language.
>What if, for the cases you sketched, the note said, "10' easement along rear lines, 5' easement along side lines" (which is a common note on old plats around here)? Then what?
Simple...
JBS
Yes, that's how I would draw them too, but I'm not going to lie to myself that there are not other reasonable intrepretations of vague wording.