not necessarily
> I also agree that it still exists, based on the additional information. When the original owner split the lot and sold the house on the lake, he retained the easement. It stays with the land until such time it is extinquished.
>
I don't think this easement was permanently attached to the land. The only easements that are permanently attached to a parcel are those that are necessary for the use of the land. Since this easement is across the road from the subject parcel it is not necessary and has a value independent of the the land. When it was not conveyed with the land it may still be a valid easement for access to the pond for the original owner. The current owner may have a prescriptive easement that needs to be looked into.
not necessarily
> I don't think this easement was permanently attached to the land. The only easements that are permanently attached to a parcel are those that are necessary for the use of the land. Since this easement is across the road from the subject parcel it is not necessary and has a value independent of the the land. When it was not conveyed with the land it may still be a valid easement for access to the pond for the original owner. The current owner may have a prescriptive easement that needs to be looked into.
I disagree. It was transferred as an easement for the owner of the adjoining land to be able to enjoy the lake. As the owner of the land changes, so does the easement. The "purpose of the easement" is compromised if you sell the adjoining land and keep the easement which you can never access (after you sell the property). The only way the purpose of the easement can be used is for it to be attached to the land. If someone wanted to extinguish the easement, the first owner that sold the land without it, should have had it extinguished prior to selling it. (and a good surveyor might want to research that and see if that had been done)