; Van Sandt v. Royster
Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Van Sandt v. Royster


  • pg 1


Van Sandt v. Royster, Supreme Court of KS, 1938 Issue Reasoning Rule
An owner can not have an easement in his own land. There was a quasi-easement. o Use of a part of the land to benefit another part o When the owner of a quasi-easement conveys the land, come on in these meant is vested, provided that the quasi-easement was apparent (≠ visibility), continuous, and necessary To establish an easement by implied reservation, the easement must be one of strict necessity. In determining whether the circumstances under which a conveyance of land is made imply an easement or a profit, the following factors are important: (a) whether the claimant is the conveyor or the conveyee, (b) the terms of the conveyance, (c) the consideration given for it, (d) whether the claim is made against a simultaneous conveyee, (e) the extent of necessity of the easement or the profit to the claimant, (f) whether reciprocal benefits result to the conveyor and the conveyee, (g) the manner in which the land was used prior to its conveyance, (h) the extent to which the manner of prior use was or might have been known to the parties Prior use must have been known to the parties at the time of the conveyance. o Or have been within the possibility of their knowledge Parties to a conveyance may be assumed to intend the continuance of uses known to them, which are in a considerable degree necessary to the continued usefulness of the land

Original land owner owned lots 19, 20, and 4. She built a house on 4 and connected its sewer line to the city’s going under 19 and 20. The land was then divided into 3 lots. 2 houses were built on the other 2 lots. The sewer line from 4 ran under 19 and 20 which also tapped into this line. The ∏ acquired lot 19 with general warranty containing covenants against encumbrances and no exceptions or reservations. When ∏’s basement flooded with sewage, he discovered the existence of the sewer drainage line used by all three houses. The ∆ refused to cease draining and discharging their sewage across ∏’s land and ∏ brought this action. The drain pipe was several feet under ground and invisible. (The landowner knew that his house was connected to a sewer when he purchased it but was unaware of the location of a lateral sewer drain that ran through his property or the fact that the drain had been constructed 30 years earlier for the use of neighboring properties as well as his own. There was no mention of an easement in any deed. The problem arose when sewage backed up into his basement.)

At the time of the purchase, he was aware: o Of the lateral sewer o Installed for the benefit of the common owner o Necessary to the comfortable enjoyment of the GOR’s property If land may be used without an easement but cannot be used without disproportionate effort and expense, an easement may still be implied in favor of either the grantor or grantee on the basis of necessity alone. ∏ purchased with notice: o Knew house was equipped with modern plumbing o Plumbing had to drain somewhere: a sewer. o ∏ was charged with notice

Held Procedure P argues D argues

Affirmed – Appurtenant easement created The court concluded that an appurtenant easement existed. Plaintiff was restrained from interfering in any way with the drain or sewer No easement was created. Even if there was an easement created plaintiff to the premises free from encumbrances without notice actual or constructive Easement was created by implied preservation. There is a valid is meant by prescription

To top