Spring Semester 2013
Easements: Implied Easements and Irrevocable Licenses
Reading Assignment: Pages 534-542, 550-553
1. Suppose that Frank owns Blueacre, an undeveloped 20-acre parcel in Missouri bounded on the south by a public road. Frank divides Blueacre in half and conveys the northern half to Jane. The deed says nothing about an easement for access across Frank's retained land, and Jane's parcel is now landlocked.
a. Why should the law permit Jane to argue that she has an implied easement of necessity?
b. Under Missouri law, which by statute allows for private condemnation of a right of way (as discussed in note 4, page 542) to benefit landlocked land, could Jane acquire an implied easement of necessity, or should she be limited to the statutory remedy?
c. If Jane wants to build a home on the land, what advice would you give Jane as to how she should proceed in order to resolve questions about access to the land?
2. In the Bob's Ready to Wear case, could the Parmans argue that they had acquired the following kinds of easements or rights over the parking lot parcel: (a) a prescriptive easement? (b) an implied easement of necessity? (c) an implied quasi-easement? (d) an irrevocable license (sometimes called easement by estoppel)?
4. Suppose that immediately after the litigation in Bob's Ready to Wear, the Weavers had announced plans to build an office building on the former parking lot parcel. Based on these plans, the Weavers send a letter to the Parmans stating that they consider the Parmans' "license" to be revoked. The Parmans seek an injunction to prevent the Weavers' development unless the development permits customer parking and access for the Parmans. What arguments would you make for the Parmans? For the Weavers? How should the court evaluate this situation? What additional information, if any, do you need?