Law School Case Brief
Cox v. Glenbrook Co. - 78 Nev. 254, 371 P.2d 647 (1962)
The process which creates an easement necessarily fixes its extent. The extent of an easement created by prescription, is fixed by the use which created it. Likewise, the extent of an easement created by conveyance is fixed by the conveyance, if clear and unambiguous.
In 1938, Glenbrook Company, the servient estate, granted Henry Quill a certain right-of-way herein referred to as the "Quill Easement”. At the time of the conveyance, Quill used his estate as a single-family residence and used a one-lane dirt road to reach the residence. There was another road through the servient estate to the dominant estate, but the servient estate blocked that road with a fence. Cox and Detrick, the developers, obtained the estate, planned to subdivide it into 40 to 60 lots and widened the dirt road. The servient estate sought a declaration that the extent of the easement was limited. In its decision, the trial court declared that the developers' easement over appellee servient estate was limited.
Did the trial court err in declaring that the developers' easement over appellee servient estate was limited?
The court found that the district court erred in restricting the easement where the wording of the easement unambiguously stated "full right of use”. According to the court, the developers could maintain, repair or improve the way. However, the court explained that the developers could not widen the way as the road was to remain the same width as the date of conveyance of the easement. Moreover, the court held that the servient estate could barricade the other road as it had the right to move roads according to the easement.
Access the full text case
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class