As properties continue to change hands and be developed, easement disputes are on the rise. An easement gives someone the right to use part of another property owner’s land. Easements can be written, recorded documents, or they can be created by the circumstances of property use and transfer. There are many different types of easements, such as road easements, driveway easements, parking easement, utility easements, well access easements, and even view easements. Obtaining an easement can be the key to unlocking the value of a property, so the easement itself can be of significant. If a neighbor substantially interferes with an easement by blocking it and preventing access to your property, they can be liable for interference with that easement and can be both ordered to pay damages and enjoined from blocking the easement.
In two recent opinions published on April 2nd, the Oregon Court of Appeals addressed how easements are established and what constitutes “substantial interference” with an access easement.
In Rehwald v. Franze, the plaintiff sued for recognition of an access easement consisting of the defendants’ lower driveway and lower entrance, which she had used for years to access her property. Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, a person’s acts, conduct, or silence may preclude a person from asserting a right. The trial court had found that, although the defendants did not explicitly promise the plaintiff that she could access her property through the lower entrance, they remained silent as the plaintiff consistently accessed her land via the lower entrance and discussed her ongoing improvements with the defendants, creating the easement through equitable estoppel. The Oregon Court of Appeals rejected the trial court’s determination, holding that the defendants did not create an easement through equitable estoppel because they did not explicitly promise the plaintiff that she could access her property through the lower entrance.
In DeMartino v. Alderin, the plaintiffs sued for trespass after the defendants allegedly blocked the plaintiffs’ access easement by placing a rock at the edge of the roadway to mark a culvert, causing garbage trucks serving the plaintiffs’ home to have to drive onto a 1-foot-wide portion of the gravel road located just outside the easement area. The trial court determined that the defendants’ actions did not constitute substantial interference with the plaintiffs’ easement, and that the roadway on the easement as currently situated is sufficient to provide access to the plaintiffs’ property. The Oregon Court of Appeals rejected the trial court’s determination, holding that the fact that the road was less than 11 feet 10 inches wide at one spot, the minimum width required for the garbage trucks to traverse the road, constitutes “substantial interference” with the plaintiffs’ access, regardless of whether the garbage truck could still pass while remaining on the gravel road.
The Court of Appeals’ recent decisions in Rehwald and DeMartino are reminders that Oregon law regarding easements is often unintuitive and is constantly evolving. If you have issues with your neighbor over the use of a shared driveway, road, or gate, you will need an attorney who has experience in easement litigation and up to speed on recent Oregon appellate opinions regarding easements. Chenoweth Law Group’s dedicated real estate litigation team provides skillful advocacy to help you win your easement disputes and protect your property rights.
