Implied easements
Help please :-)
A is a commercial entity that has a large parcel of land divided into 3 parts:-
Parcel 1 has been leased for 999 years to B in 1982 and contains a 'right of way with or without vehicles' over the A's retained land marked brown on the plan
Parcel 2 has been leased for 25 years to C in 2001 and contains a 'right of way at all times for all purposes connected with the land' over A's retained land marked blue hatched on the plan
Parcel 3 is sold in 2012 to D and the sale included the blue hatched area marked on the plan (used by B). The deed contains a right granted to D over the area marked brown (belonging to A) with or without vehicles and is referred to as an access road. It also contains a right retained for A and B over the blue hatched area referred to as a pathway.
Question: Can B use the blue hatched area for vehicles given that rights were retained by A for a pathway and there is no mention of vehicles?
- There is no express right of vehicle access in B's lease or on D's deed for this area
- There is no necessity as B has an alternative and better vehicle access elsewhere
- There is no prescription as B has only used the blue hatched area continuously for 15 years
- There is prior use but B cannot demonstrate that it is reasonably necessary in view of the alternative access
So does B have implied rights to use the blue hatched area that A sold to D - even though A did not retain vehicle rights over the land??
A is a commercial entity that has a large parcel of land divided into 3 parts:-
Parcel 1 has been leased for 999 years to B in 1982 and contains a 'right of way with or without vehicles' over the A's retained land marked brown on the plan
Parcel 2 has been leased for 25 years to C in 2001 and contains a 'right of way at all times for all purposes connected with the land' over A's retained land marked blue hatched on the plan
Parcel 3 is sold in 2012 to D and the sale included the blue hatched area marked on the plan (used by B). The deed contains a right granted to D over the area marked brown (belonging to A) with or without vehicles and is referred to as an access road. It also contains a right retained for A and B over the blue hatched area referred to as a pathway.
Question: Can B use the blue hatched area for vehicles given that rights were retained by A for a pathway and there is no mention of vehicles?
- There is no express right of vehicle access in B's lease or on D's deed for this area
- There is no necessity as B has an alternative and better vehicle access elsewhere
- There is no prescription as B has only used the blue hatched area continuously for 15 years
- There is prior use but B cannot demonstrate that it is reasonably necessary in view of the alternative access
So does B have implied rights to use the blue hatched area that A sold to D - even though A did not retain vehicle rights over the land??
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- LAND LAW ESSAY PLAN please help me
- easements(Right of parking)
- easements(Right of parking)
- An Inspector Calls: Eric Essay
- english language paper 2 question 4
- STEP 2006 Solutions Thread
- a christmas carol practice answer
- Curve Equation
- Her death the dividing mark: Before and After
- STEP 2005 Solutions Thread
- is this relationship over?
- Switching Courses at Bath
- Logarithms Question
- Costa Coffee notice
- carbonyl question MCQ
- Can someone please give me feedback on this essay?
- in regular edexcel A level maths are events always independent
- An inspector calls GCSE - can anyone analyse this quote for me, PLEASE!!!
- AS maths trig help
- English literature Tempest essay
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-level Law Paper 3 (H418/03) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
