- The speaker discusses their experience with a subject called "easements" and how it has been amazing.
- They explain that an easement is a right to access or use someone else's property.
- Easements are created so that people can have rights outside of their own property and extend into other people's properties.
- The speaker differentiates easements from being a guest or having a license or lease.
- They mention that easements can be transferable and have specific rights attached to them.
- The speaker discusses the difference between easements and being a guest at someone's house.
- They explain that easements give a person some interest in how the land is governed and are not possessory.
- The rights granted by an easement depend on what is specified in the easement itself.
- The speaker mentions that easements can be created through a grant or by prescription.
- They discuss the idea of revoking an easement and the duration of an easement.
- The speaker refers to a specific case, the Bruton case, which may provide more information on easements.

- The video discusses the Bruton case and how it helped define the concept of an easement.
- In the case, someone wanted to advertise on another person's building and they made an arrangement for a billboard and exclusivity agreement for $25 a year.
- The building owner refused to take the money, but the court ruled that he had to honor the agreement as it created an easement, which is a right to access someone else's property.
- The court distinguished between a license and an easement based on the extent to which it is revocable and the exclusivity aspect.
- The court held that despite being called a lease, the agreement was actually an easement because it granted the exclusive right to use the wall.
- The video discusses the difference between a lease, license, and easement, and gives examples like beachfront access and the postman's right to deliver mail.
- The video concludes with a metaphorical explanation of a lease, license, and easement using a dinner table analogy.

- The court in the case discussed in the video considers different possibilities and determines that the transaction fits into the category of an easement.
- An easement grants a right in the land, unlike an invitation to dinner which is not transferable or maintainable.
- Writing may be necessary for the creation of an easement, especially if it involves the use of different plots of land.
- Prescription, which is like adverse possession, may exempt the need for writing in certain cases.
- The court of equity may enforce an oral agreement dealing with land despite the statute of frauds.
- There are different types of easements, such as easements in gross and easements in pertinent.
- It is important to consider whether easements are beneficial or if they must strictly fit within the definition. The judicial attitude towards easements is not discussed.

- Easements are a legal question and their favorability affects how courts enforce them
- Courts generally treat easements positively if there is a clear agreement between parties
- Easements must be in writing and attached to properties, not people
- Some courts view easements as an encumbrance on the free usage of land
- Easements can be transferred from one person to another, which may complicate matters
- Easements may hinder the free alienability of property and make it harder for landowners to convey their property
- Easements may be hidden and not require visible signs, which can be problematic
- Easements may raise questions about the misuse and extent of usage
- Easements can create options for landowners and provide certainty for certain activities
- Landowners have the option to convey licenses instead of easements for more control and potential damages

- The law of easements is useful but not favored for extension
- Creating an easement requires specific terms and cannot be assumed by judges
- Case law emphasizes the importance of understanding what is being conveyed in an easement
- Courts prefer to maintain the status quo and not create new rights
- A case in Missouri illustrates the strict interpretation of a statute regarding roadway of necessity
- Another case involving water access shows how practicality and modern circumstances may impact the outcome
- Waterway access is more regulated and may be considered an expense beyond reasonable access
- Transferring an easement can be burdensome and may lead to complications
- The caution with which courts approach easements may apply to modern situations with similar facts.

- The speaker is questioning whether courts would have the same caution in accepting easements in modern situations.
- They discuss the balance between favoring or disfavoring easements and the need for limitations.
- Easements related to waterfronts or commonly used land are seen as more acceptable.
- The creation of an easement should be based on strict or quasi necessity.
- The responsibility of maintaining an easement can be allocated as desired, but the landowner should generally be responsible.
- It is important to clearly specify the details of an easement to ensure proper access.
- The speaker concludes the discussion and mentions an assignment for the next class.

The speaker discusses their experience with easements, which are rights to access or use someone else's property. They explain the differences between easements and other forms of access, such as being a guest or having a license or lease. Easements can be transferable and have specific rights attached to them. The speaker refers to a specific case, the Bruton case, which helped define the concept of an easement. The video also discusses the difference between a lease, license, and easement, and gives examples. Easements can be created through a grant or by prescription. The video concludes by discussing the caution with which courts approach easements and the need for limitations.

I also, I forgot to say, just like an update, I can't say it like a huge, like, hell yeah, I can't say it like a huge, like, hell yeah, but it's been awesome.

And I've probably been like, I'm not making it

Our subject for today is the law of easements And I want to take as close a look at the questions that arise under that subject as possible.

And I thought that the in this instance, I'd deviate from my normal practice of just relying on volunteers and call on someone to help me with the question.

Suppose this conversation at the dinner table, you come home, your Parents ask you, what did you learn today?

I would say an easement is a right to access or use, to some extent, somebody else's job rating that is probably

to access or use somebody else's property that

is probably next to yours and requires yeah it means a right to access somebody else's property.

And the access, you know, it could be that you're walking through it, it could be that you have, you know, an easement that is 1 where there's a view that you own that cannot be obstructed or there's a road through somebody's property or you know such.

These easements are created so that people can have rights outside of the specific property that they own.

And it extends into other people's properties.

Now, they might ask you, Could you be a little more specific about that?

I mean, you're here having dinner with us.

Are you exercising a right of an easement?

Well, so what's the difference between that and what you were describing as an easement?

An easement is, I am not quite sure how a guest would figure it, but there's a lot of different ways to have access to other people's properties.

You could have a license in terms of, you can get a license to come over to my house and take food out of the fridge, that's probably not gonna be an easement because an easement is a property right that you can actually transfer.

And 1 of the ways that it's different from a license, It differs from a lease as well.

In other words, you would tell them that I could, if this were an easement, I could give it to someone else.

Yes, I think if I'm using it to walk to the dinner table and sit down and eat there, then I think I could transfer that to somebody else.

What do the rest of you think of that point?

Your parents never heard of what an engross or an emportant uneasement is, so you better explain that.

The easement, for instance, is attached to land that's usually encased in concrete, whereas an easement can be transferable, and is more of like a...

Can be attached to people or is a non-fettering insert that is fully attached.

So I'm not here having dinner with you, I'm not exercising an easement at all.

Well that seems to be what you were saying.

You don't have an easement because you don't have any legal interest.

You're here for as long as the person wants you to be at.

an easement, you'd have a right or some interest of coming in or doing something with the land or preventing you from using the land in some way.

So in other words it's not like being a guest at all is it?

No it's that you have actually some right some interest in how

the land is governed of another property that's not possessory.

Well they say that's I understand that much but what rights would an easement give me if I had 1?

In other words, your parents are trying to discover what you learned.

Well, it would depend on specifically what is given in the easement.

As I understand it, you know, there are easements that can be created by, you know, a specific grant that defines it or they can be created by prescription in that case.

With the dinner example, if I'm going over and eating at somebody's, at my parents' table, that is a juxtapositional relationship that probably would not hold up in court as was printed even.

But if I were continually foraging for food in somebody else's yard and walking through it to do that, it might.

And the rights that easement confer is that it becomes defined to the point where I have an interest in it that is then transferable.

So In other words, it would be an easement if you could appoint anyone to have dinner that you wanted.

In that case, I'm not sure in that case if it would typically be an easement or it would be a license.

Certainly there's probably some degree of transferability with licenses and it would maybe depend on their power to revoke, you know, what they would consider as my privilege and rightfully so.

If they don't have power to revoke it, it's more likely to be an easement than a license.

say that I had an easement from my room to the dinner table.

And my mom and dad wanted to make it where I could no longer walk from my room to the dinner table and they revoked that privilege from me.

I would tell them, under this easement that we have together, if we have an easement, you can't do that.

You can't just revoke my privilege to walk from my room to the dinner table.

So it's something that I have that is irrevocable by you and it's an interest that I have in this hallway.

It would last as long as either the deed said or if...

Okay, so let's say that in making easement, I have my own bathroom, I have a piece of paper, Nathan has the ability to walk from his room to the dinner table in perpetuity on his emissions.

I guess there's a rule of impurities obviously, but let's just say that that is the case.

It would last for as long as I want to exercise that right.

So it would be something which you could choose.

I mean, I imagine they could limit it if I agreed to have them do this, but ideally I wouldn't want to.

Well, they're inviting you so they can dictate the terms of the invitation, can't they?

Yes, I mean, but I would say, well, I would rather it be offered.

Well, you wouldn't have to agree to it, but if you want a dinner, you would.

Could you tell us anything about it from the cases that we've read?

Would they would they inform you at all as to what a proper answer would be?

I was thinking of the case we started on just briefly last time.

What about the could you would you mention the Bruton case if they asked you to be a little more specific?

That's 1 way of answering the question, the query that they were put to you.

Well, we studied this particular case and it helped me to define what is meant by an easement?

Yeah, in this particular case, there was 1, you know, somebody owned a building and somebody else wanted to advertise on that building.

They contracted and had an arrangement where, you know, for $25 a year, you'd be able to put his billboard on that building and also have an advertising exclusivity agreement over that particular facade.

So what happened in the case is that he put the billboard up and sent the money to the man who owned the building, but that guy appeared to be no longer interested in the Bonner Indian bargain and refused to take the money.

had to because by making this bargain, this person had purchased the amendment, which is a right to access on somebody else's property.

This was different than what would be a license in that case because a license could have been revoked and said, I'm not gonna take your money.

In this case, the interest had been created at that point and the person who owned the building was required to honor if the person had been created but not provoked.

Well, what was it about the case that made it not just a license?

The difference between a license and an agreement, or if they're in an easement, from this view, seems to be an extent to which it is revocable, and in the contract it wasn't revocable.

In fact, the person putting up the billboard had the opportunity to renew it at his will.

So it was not possible for the building owner to revoke that agreement.

Second, it was also differentiated from what a lease was because it had this exclusivity aspect to it that was more specifically focused on the specific use of this rather than saying okay you have a lease to use this it was you have a like a sole right to what is happening on the side of the bill.

Do not follow the court's reasoning, but at least as as clear as the other part of that.

Yeah, the if you look on page 06:39 at the top, the carryover paragraph, you remember that the writing in which the deal was went ahead called it a lease, lease number of such and such.

But the court held that it was not a lease, in fact.

And what was it that distinguished it from what they called it?

Well, the court pointed out that you can call something whatever you want, but it's not in fact that in essence, it's not going to hold up in this case.

They called it a lease, but they described it instead as an easement.

I think when I was reading it, it seemed like the court first made the differentiation between whether it was a license or a lease.

And they kind of leaned on the license side.

And then at that point, it was necessary to show that because of that, the defining revocable characteristic of a license is sent back to the easel.

So in terms of where a lease and an easel are specifically distinguished, I don't recall or my notes are not very good on that.

It seems like the difference between a lease and an easement is that when you have a lease of something,

the lessor is giving up the ownership and that type of thing.

this company had a lease for the wall, that company would own the wall for those 5 years.

Whereas an easement, the exclusive ownership right still remains with the person granting the easement.

They're just granting you the ability to use it.

They're giving you the ability to use it and can they take that back?

I also think that in this arrangement, it is pretty clear that the defendants, I mean, I think it's hard to say that they're retaining the exclusive ownership to that.

And it's hard to figure out what exactly that is.

Like If you lease a wall and I can do whatever I want with it, how it seems like the defendant's actually giving up more ownership in granting the exclusivity agreement because that is making it the plaintiff's prerogative to use the wall in a way that the defendant might not even, you know, enjoy.

Like, yeah, what can the plaintiff or what can the defendant really do with that wall while this easement is being used?

Well, that's the whole purpose of the deal, wasn't it?

I don't know what's going to happen if he takes the whole wall down.

It's just the right to use the wall, isn't it?

And is that an example of many easements?

See, 1 thing you can do in answering a question like this is to provide us a simple example of an easement and say it was just like what happened in the case.

No, something that your parents would understand.

I think that my parents would probably understand any kind of argument where the most, the common easements that people typically understand are the ones that end up where you have to walk to some waterfront property to have some

Probably, I would say maybe, you know that's probably something that's more defined by the license or like the quality of the job and the way that it interacts with it.

But if I understand easement to be transferable, I think that the postman's would be pretty restricted from transferring that right to anybody, even if they were putting paper in.

Yeah, so you could probably revoke that if it's a license to some degree, but that's interesting.

You can sit at the dinner table and we're not going to kick you out.

License is you can sit at the dinner table

A lease can be something more, because that's where you like, you

Whereas an easement is, I'm going to sit here for this dinner and eat some of the food and it's still our table, but you can have some, it's still our table, but I think you can have some of the food as well.

Well, I would say that would not make it an easement because there's no property right involved.

And there doesn't have to be a property right involved in an easement.

Metaphorically, how can a mashed potato be metaphoric?

The lease would be you own the table value.

The license would be you could sit at the table and rock it to keep you out.

And the lease would be, well, you could sit here for this purpose or whatever you wish to do with it.

Well, maybe we better abandon this question.

Though it's a useful question in a way, because it requires you to think through what else a particular transaction would be.

You'll notice from the case, that that's exactly what the court does.

They run through the various possibilities that this might be and decide that it fits into the category of an easement better than any of the others.

And the consequence of that is that some results follow.

Summarize Helmholz's main points throughout the lecture in 10 bullet points. 

See all Unknown transcripts on Zoom

Property (Helmholz) - Fall 2023