A common issue in my experience as an attorney dealing with real estate and property issues, particularly easement issues, is the expansion of the use of an easement to other uses. The purpose an easement is used for is generally referred to as the scope of the easement.
Determining the scope of an express easement (an easement created via a written deed)is generally straight-forward. A well-drafted easement will expressly state the purpose of the easement. In a large percentage of express easements, the purpose is limited to ingress or egress (i.e. access to a specific property) and no further limitations are included in the language. However, on occasion, issues of scope of use of an express easement may still arise.
A recent opinion out of Division III of the Washington State Court of Appeals deals specifically with the issue of the scope of an express easement in the case of Wilson & Son Ranch, LLC v. Hintz. In this case, the defendants, the Hintzes, had been utilizing their property, and subsequently an easement to access the property, for numerous years as a fish hatchery. Sometime in 2001, the Hintzes ended their fish hatchery business and began hosting outdoor events, like weddings, on their property. The owners of the neighboring property, whose land the Hintzes had an easement across to access their land, were unhappy over the change of use and sued the Hintzes. The neighbors' primary argument was that the Hintzes use of the access easement for the purpose of an outdoor events business exceeded the scope of the easement.
The Court of Appeals rejected this argument. In reviewing the scope of an express easement, the Court's primary objective is to effectuate the intent of the parties that created the express easement. The Court determined that, in this case, the express language of the deed placed no limitations on the use of the easement, other than that the easement be used for ingress and egress. No evidence apparently was presented that the parties to the original express easement intended any limitations on the use of the easement. Based on those factors, the Court determined that the easement was not limited and that the change of use of the easement to access the Hinzes' property from a hatchery to outdoor events was not unreasonable.
