[the-dark-knight]

Thank you very much! This is incredibly helpful. I will definitely look into doing this here. Appreciate the detailed walkthrough 

[the-dark-knight]

Thank you very much Mark. Would you say that this is a general public utility easement, whereby any and all utility companies can use or was this created specifically for one type of utility with one beneficiary? 

[Mark Mayer]

You have learned that there is (or was) a water line in that easement. The thing about water is that sanitary and untreated storm water lines can’t be within a certain distance of it (at least not without some rather expensive precautions).  Technically that distance can be a vertical seperation but in practice that means the only utility you are going to find in close proximity to water is natural gas.    

[RADAR]

Presumably; the cloud on the title was there when you purchased the property, with a prorated, significantly decreased value. There may have also been the assumption that you purchased an unencumbered estate. Somewhere, along the chain of title, the original lots were merged, extinguishing the encumbrance of the easement.

The Doctrine of Merger Might be a stretch; watch out for rights of innocent third parties being prejudiced…

SAMAD v. PROPERTIES FOUR, INC.  may have some bearing on your case, as well.

It might be as easy as hiring an attorney and filing a quiet title action on the easement. If no one contests it, you win!

your first step should be to have an ALTA Survey of the property; to document the existence of every and all encumbrances.

 

---

I hope everyone has a great day; I know I will!

[Norman_Oklahoma]

As you say, The Doctrine of Merger does not apply here.  At no time – that we know of – was the dominant estate (the easement)  and servient estate (the lots) under the same ownership. If the city bought the land, perhaps then it would apply.