A man owned a large tract of land that had frontage on a public highway. The land had no access to any other road. Fifteen years ago, the man conveyed the rear half of the land to a woman and at the same time conveyed an express easement to the woman that provided access from her land across his retained land to the public highway. The woman used the easement until she reconveyed the land back to the man 10 years ago. The deed to the man made no reference to the easement. Five years ago, the man again conveyed the rear half of the land, this time to an investor in a deed that made no reference to any easement to the public highway. Recently, the man told the investor that he could no longer cross the man's land for access to the public highway. A neighbor has told the investor that he can use her land for access to another public road "for a price." The investor has sued the man for the right to cross the man's land to the public highway. For whom will the court likely decide?

Question

Lucille Vaughn

Social Studies

1 October, 00:43

A man owned a large tract of land that had frontage on a public highway. The land had no access to any other road. Fifteen years ago, the man conveyed the rear half of the land to a woman and at the same time conveyed an express easement to the woman that provided access from her land across his retained land to the public highway. The woman used the easement until she reconveyed the land back to the man 10 years ago. The deed to the man made no reference to the easement. Five years ago, the man again conveyed the rear half of the land, this time to an investor in a deed that made no reference to any easement to the public highway. Recently, the man told the investor that he could no longer cross the man's land for access to the public highway. A neighbor has told the investor that he can use her land for access to another public road "for a price." The investor has sued the man for the right to cross the man's land to the public highway. For whom will the court likely decide?

+5

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Jarrett Carrillo · Answer 1

The answer is - The investor

Explanation:

The court will likely decide for the investor because an easement will be implied. An easement is the legal right given to use someone else's land for a while or limited purpose, however the owner of the land still retains the legal title to the land. The person being given an easement has the right to maintain the easement for its purpose until the owner of the easement and the owner of the property come to a different agreement or annulment.