Block v. DEA Properties-2 LLC

                                      525

 Argued and submitted February 26, 2020, reversed and remanded on appeal
                   and cross-appeal November 3, 2021


                       Ernest W. BLOCK, Jr.,
                        Plaintiff-Respondent
                          Cross-Appellant,
                                 and
                         Marvin C. LEACH
                        and Debra J. Leach,
                       Plaintiffs-Respondents,
                                 and
                       Ron D. HILLER et al.,
                              Plaintiffs,
                                  v.
                    DEA PROPERTIES-2 LLC,
                        Defendant-Appellant
                         Cross-Respondent.
                  Tillamook County Circuit Court
                        17CV37076; A169127
                                  

    Plaintiff Block owns two properties that benefit from a beach-access easement over the property of defendant, DEA Properties-2, LLC (DEA). Block
assigned his easement—but neither of his properties—to plaintiffs Marvin and
Debra Leach in an effort to allow the Leaches to use the beach-access easement.
Block and the Leaches then sought a declaration that that assignment, among
others, was valid and effective, and the trial court agreed. DEA appealed a general judgment entered following a bench trial, contending that the trial court
erred in holding that the easement can validly be assigned to someone who does
not own the dominant or servient estate. Block cross-appealed, contending that
the court erred in granting relief on DEA’s counterclaim for an implied easement
over a road on Block’s parcel. Held: The deed unambiguously created an ordinary appurtenant easement, which cannot be severed and transferred separately
from the dominant estate. On appeal, therefore, the trial court erred in declaring
that the easement assignment agreements were valid and enforceable. On cross-appeal, the question that the trial court was required to answer was whether an
easement arose as an inference of the intention of the parties to a conveyance
of land based on the circumstances existing at the time of the conveyance in
December 1997. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for the trial court
to reevaluate the evidence under the correct legal standard.
    Reversed and remanded on appeal and cross-appeal.
526                          Block v. DEA Properties-2 LLC

  Jonathan R. Hill, Judge.
   Steve C. Morasch and Landerholm, P. S. filed the briefs
for appellant-cross-respondent.
   Gregory S. Hathaway argued the cause for respondentcross-appellant and respondents. Also on the briefs was
Hathaway Larson LLP.
  Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and
Mooney, Judge.
  DeHOOG, J.
  Reversed and remanded on appeal and cross-appeal.
Cite as 

 (2021)                                           527

          DeHOOG, J.
         This appeal arises from a dispute between neighbors. Plaintiff Block owns two properties that benefit from a
beach-access easement over the property of defendant, DEA
Properties-2, LLC (DEA). Block assigned his easement—but
neither of his properties—to plaintiffs Marvin and Debra
Leach in an effort to allow the Leaches to use the beach-access easement. Block and the Leaches then sought a declaration that that assignment, among others, was valid and
effective, and the trial court agreed.
         DEA appeals a general judgment entered following
a bench trial, contending that the trial court erred in holding that the easement can validly be assigned to someone
who does not own the dominant or servient estate. Block
cross-appeals, contending that the court erred in granting
relief on DEA’s counterclaim for an implied easement over
a road on Block’s parcel.1 As explained below, we conclude
that the court erred in holding that the grant of an appurtenant easement to owners of certain property and their
“heirs, successors, and assigns” indicates an intention to
make the appurtenant easement assignable separately from
ownership of the dominant estate. We also conclude that the
trial court erred in determining that DEA has an implied
easement over the road on Block’s parcel. Accordingly, we
reverse and remand.
         We begin by providing some basic background facts
and the specific facts relevant to DEA’s appeal. The following facts are undisputed.
         In 1994 and 1995, the Hatch heirs partitioned a
piece of beachfront property into several parcels. In 1997,
they sold parcel 2 to DeCarrico, reserving “A beach access
Easement along the Southerly 5 feet of Parcel 2 …, in favor
of the owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, of the following described property, in Tillamook County, Oregon[.]”
The “following described property”—the property to whose
owners the easement is reserved—is a list of four properties. Two of those properties are other parcels in the Hatch

     1
       The judgment also denied the Leaches’ claim for a prescriptive easement
for beach access. That claim is not at issue on appeal.
528                                   Block v. DEA Properties-2 LLC

heirs’ partition; the other two are other neighboring properties. We refer to parcel 2 as the servient estate and the four
properties in whose favor the easement was reserved as the
dominant estates.2
         As a general matter, DeCarrico allowed neighbors
to use the beach-access path on parcel 2. In approximately
2015, DeCarrico sold parcel 2 to DEA. Anderson, the principal of DEA, took steps to limit the use of the easement to
the owners of the dominant estates.
        Plaintiff Block owns two of the dominant estates
and one other nearby property, which is known as the
green house. In 2017, in documents entitled “Easement
Assignment Agreement for Beach Access,” he purported to
assign the easement to four couples who do not own dominant estates, including the Leaches. At the same time, the
owner of another of the dominant estates, the Hiller Family
Trust, executed an Easement Assignment Agreement for
Beach Access in favor of Block as the owner of the green
house.
        Block, the trustee of the Hiller Family Trust, the
Leaches, and the other couples to whom Block assigned
the easement brought this declaratory-judgment action,
seeking, among other things, a declaration that they had
the right to use the easement under the assignment agreements. In cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties
disputed the validity of the Assignment Agreements for
Beach Access. DEA contended that the beach-access easement was an appurtenant easement and, therefore, could
not be assigned or otherwise transferred to anyone other
than the owners of the dominant estates. DEA asserted that
the term “assigns” in the text of the reservation—which, as
set out above, reserves the easement “in favor of the owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, of the following
described property”—is standard text indicating that the
easement runs with the land.

    2
      At trial, there was testimony that the deed to a fifth property granted the
beach access easement to that property even though that property was not listed
as a dominant estate in the deed to parcel 2. That fifth dominant estate is not at
issue in DEA’s appeal, so we do not discuss it further.
Cite as 

 (2021)                              529

       Plaintiffs did not dispute that the beach-access
easement was an appurtenant easement. They contended,
however, that the inclusion of the word “assigns” in the text
unambiguously indicated the parties’ intention to allow the
easement to be assigned separately from ownership of the
dominant estates.
         Relying on cases involving easements in gross, the
trial court agreed with plaintiffs. However, relying on the
same cases, the court held that, although the purported
assignments were valid, there remained a genuine issue
of material fact as to whether, given the number of assignments made, they collectively exceeded the scope of the original easement, which was limited to reasonable use of the
property.
         The trial court therefore denied both motions for
summary judgment and held a trial to determine whether
the assignments would result in unreasonable use of the
property. Before trial, Block rescinded three of his assignments, and the plaintiffs whose assignments were rescinded
before trial, as well as the trustee of the Hiller Family Trust,
were removed from the case. Thus, at trial, and again on
appeal, the only assignments at issue are Block’s assignment to the Leaches and the Hiller Family Trust’s assignment to Block as owner of the green house.
         At trial, DEA again contended that the easement
could not be assigned separately from the dominant estates,
and the court again rejected that argument. Ultimately,
the trial court held that the use of the easement that would
result from the remaining assignments was reasonable
and entered judgment on the beach-access easement claim
in favor of Block and the Leaches, declaring that the two
assignments at issue “are valid and enforceable.”
         DEA appeals, asserting that “[t]he owner of the
beneficial rights under an appurtenant easement cannot
unilaterally expand the easement by assigning the beneficial rights to additional properties.” DEA also argues that
the word “assigns” in the deed refers to assignees of the
property, not assignees of the easement separately from
ownership of the property. Thus, DEA contends, the trial
court erred in declaring the assignments to be valid and
530                          Block v. DEA Properties-2 LLC

enforceable. For their part, Block and the Leaches contend
that the trial court correctly concluded that the inclusion
of the word “assigns” unambiguously indicates the parties’
intention to allow separate assignment of the beach-access
easement.
        As explained below, we agree with DEA that the
easement created in the deed to parcel 2 is an appurtenant easement that cannot be assigned separately from
an interest in the dominant estates. Accordingly, the trial
court erred in holding that the assignments were valid and
enforceable.
         “In reviewing a trial court’s determinations following a bench trial, we review the trial court’s explicit and
implicit findings of fact for any evidence in the record to
support them, and the legal consequences of those facts for
legal error.” Pistol Resources, LLC v. McNeely, 

, 

 (2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). As noted above, the facts relevant to DEA’s appeal are
undisputed; accordingly, our task here is to review the trial
court’s legal conclusions for legal error.
          “ ‘An easement is a right in one person to do certain
acts on land of another.’ ” Miller v. Jones, 

, 

 (2013) (quoting Bloomfield v. Weakland,

, 

 (2008), rev den, 

 (2009)). “An appurtenant easement ‘is one where the
land of one person, the servient [estate], is subjected to some
use or burden for the benefit of the lands of another person, the dominant [estate].’ ” Id. at 399 (quoting Bloomfield,

). “ ‘The right is enjoyed by the owner of
the dominant estate by virtue of his ownership of the land.
If the dominant estate is sold or otherwise transferred to
another, the easement over the servient land is transferred
as well.’ ” 

 (quoting Braat v. Aylett, 

, 

 (1977)).
         In Sunset Lake v. Remington, 

,

 (1980), we held that, if an easement does not
subject the land to a use or burden for the benefit of another
piece of land but, instead, subjects land to a use or burden
that is personal—separable from the creator’s ownership
Cite as 

 (2021)                                 531

of any particular land—it is not an appurtenant easement;
rather, it is an easement in gross:
   “[T]he easement was not created to benefit the dedicator
   as the possessor of a particular tract of land. Absent that
   element, the easement is not appurtenant. Rather, the
   easement was reserved to the dedicator for commercial
   purposes, and was personal to him in the sense that it was
   not an incident of his possession of a dominant [estate]. As
   such it is an easement in gross.”

 (internal citations omitted; citing 5 Restatement (First)
of Property §§ 453, 454 (1944); A. James Casner ed.,
2 American Law of Property 286, § 8.75 (1952)).
         Here, the trial court concluded—and the parties do
not dispute—that the reservation in the deed to parcel 2
creates an appurtenant easement. We agree. As explained
above, an appurtenant easement creates a right that is
“enjoyed by the owner of the dominant estate by virtue of
his ownership of the land.” Miller, 

 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sunset Lake, 

 (an easement was in gross rather than appurtenant because it “was personal to [the creator] in the sense
that it was not an incident of his possession of a dominant
tenement”). The easement at issue here is reserved “in favor
of the owners, their heirs, successors and assigns, of the
following described property.” The benefit of the easement
is enjoyed by the owners of the dominant estates by virtue
of their ownership of the land; thus, it is an appurtenant
easement.
         The deed’s creation of an appurtenant easement
is incompatible with the trial court’s conclusion that the
easement can be assigned separately from ownership of the
dominant estates. See Jantzen Beach Associates v. Jantzen
Dynamic Corp., 

, 

 (2005),
adh’d to as modified on recons, 

, 

,
rev den, 

 (2006) (holding that, because “the property interest reflected in the restrictive covenant” was an
appurtenant easement, it “is not severable from the land, nor
is it personal to plaintiff”). If the easement were assigned
separately from the land, it would cease to be an appurtenant easement, because the benefit of the easement would
532                                     Block v. DEA Properties-2 LLC

not be enjoyed by the assignees by virtue of their ownership
of the land. As to the assignees, the easement would be in
gross, while it would remain appurtenant as to the owners
of the dominant estates. The parties have not identified
any Oregon case that contemplates a hybrid appurtenant/
in gross easement of that kind, nor are we aware of such
authority.3
         However, this case does not require us to decide
whether a hybrid appurtenant/in gross easement can exist
under Oregon law, because, as explained below, the deed to
parcel 2 does not express any intention to create that type of
servitude.4 Rather, it unambiguously expresses the parties’
intention to create a standard appurtenant easement.
    3
      As New Jersey’s intermediate appellate court explained in a case presenting the same issue,
         “Treatises dealing with the topic are in universal agreement that, absent
    a clear intent to the contrary in the instrument creating the easement, an
    easement appurtenant benefits only those with a possessory interest in the
    dominant estate, and such benefit cannot be assigned to third parties independent of the dominant land to which it is appurtenant: 4 Powell on Real
    Property § 34.15 at 34-161-161-62 (Wolf ed. 2009) (In discussing the effect of
    subdividing the dominant tenement, ‘[s]ome increase in burden can result
    from the increase in the number of users, but such increase in burden is
    kept within limits by the fact that any easement appurtenant has its total
    extent defined by the needs of the dominant estate.’); Restatement (Third) of
    Property: Servitudes § 4.11 (2000) (‘Unless the terms of the servitude determined under § 4.1 provide otherwise, an appurtenant easement or profit may
    not be used for the benefit of property other than the dominant estate.’); Roger
    A. Cunningham et al., The Law of Property § 8.10 at 461 (1984) (‘The word
    “appurtenant” signifies that an easement appurtenant is attached to and a
    part of the right of possession of its dominant tenement. … Therefore, any
    act that is sufficient to transfer title or even rightful possession of the dominant tenement will carry the easement rights with it. … Nor may the easement be transferred separately from the dominant tenement, for “appurtenant”
    also signifies that the easement may serve only the dominant tenement, as we
    have seen.’); 2 American Law of Property § 8.73 at 285 (1952) (‘Even rarer
    are cases in which the intention appears to permit what was created as an
    easement appurtenant to be changed into an easement in gross. Hence it will
    be assumed, in the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary, that an
    appurtenant easement cannot be divorced from the dominant tenement in such
    a way as to permit it to become an easement in gross or become appurtenant to
    another tenement.’) (Emphasis added).”
Rosen v. Keeler, 411 NJ Super 439, 452-53, 

 (NJ App Div 2010)
(internal footnote omitted).
    4
      The Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) (2000) contemplates that
parties may create such a hybrid easement, although it applies a presumption
that that is not what parties intend. 

 § 5.6 (“Except as provided in subsections (1) through (3), an appurtenant benefit may not be severed and transferred
Cite as 

 (2021)                                                  533

          “In construing an easement, our task is to discern
the nature and scope of the easement’s purpose and to give
effect to that purpose in a practical manner.” Bloomfield, 

. “To determine an easement’s purpose, we
first look to the words of the easement, viewing them in the
context of the entire document; if the words clearly express
the easement’s purpose, our analysis ends.” Knight v. Nyara,

, 

 (2011). “If the wording at
issue is uncertain or ambiguous, then the court must determine the intent of the original parties by examining the relevant surrounding circumstances.” Tipperman v. Tsiatsos,

, 

 (1998). “The goal is always to
give effect to the parties’ intentions.” Bloomfield, 

.
          As set out above, the deed to parcel 2 reserves “A
beach access Easement along the Southerly 5 feet of Parcel
2 …, in favor of the owners, their heirs, successors and
assigns, of the following described property[.]” The trial
court concluded, and plaintiffs contend on appeal, that the
easement was assignable separately from ownership of the
dominant estates because the reservation refers to the owners’ “assigns.” Plaintiffs reason that the reference to the
owners’ “successors” is sufficient on its own to make the
easement run with the land and, therefore, the inclusion of
the term “assigns” must have been intended to convey a different meaning. They posit that the different meaning that
the parties intended for “assigns” was to allow the easement
to be severed from the land and assigned separately from
the dominant estates.

separately from all or part of the benefited property. … (3) Appurtenant benefits
made severable and transferable by the terms of the servitude may be severed and
transferred.”); 

 § 5.6 comment a. (“Permitting severance and separate transfer
of the benefit would generally permit conversion of an appurtenant benefit into
a benefit in gross, imposing a greater burden on the property. Accordingly, the
basic rule stated in this section is that appurtenant benefits may not be severed
and transferred separately from all or part of the benefited property. The rule
reflects a presumption as to the likely intent of the parties who created the servitude rather than a public policy against conversion of appurtenant benefits into
benefits in gross.”); see also Rosen, 

 (in New Jersey, where the
courts have adopted the approach set out in the Restatement (Third) of Property
(Servitudes), “an easement appurtenant cannot be transferred or assigned for the
benefit of another tenement separate from the dominant estate unless the instrument creating it demonstrates a clear intent to grant such a right”).
534                             Block v. DEA Properties-2 LLC

         For several reasons, we reject that argument.
First, “successors and assigns” is standard language that
is often included in easements and servitudes as part of
a habendum clause defining the scope of the easement or
servitude—specifically, making the easement or servitude
run with the land. See, e.g., Westwood Homeowners Ass’n,
Inc. v. Lane County, 

, 

 (1993)
(Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions are appurtenant
servitudes; the declaration provided that they “shall run
with … the real property and be binding on all parties
having any right, title or interest in the … properties
or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and assigns”);
Fischer v. Walker, 

, 

(2001) (an instrument that granted an easement to specified people, “their heirs, successors and assigns” that was
“for the use and benefit of” Tax Lot 600 and “appurtenant
thereto” created an appurtenant easement for the benefit of
Tax Lot 600).
         To the extent that each word in a habendum clause
must have independent meaning—a premise on which we
express no opinion—“assigns” does have meaning independent of the terms “heirs” and “successors.” In response to the
same argument in a very similar context—where a party
argued that the term “assigns” in the grant of an appurtenant easement made the easement assignable separately
from the dominant estate—New Jersey’s intermediate
appellate court explained as follows:
   “On this point, an example from the Restatement (First) of
   Property § 487 comment h, illustration 6 (1944) … provides a concrete example of how one might be an ‘assign’
   under the terms of the Declaration without being a ‘successor in title.’ The illustration states that if the owner of
   a dominant estate entered into a lease for a term of years
   with a tenant, the lease document would entitle the tenant
   to possession of the land and thus also entitle the tenant to
   use of the easement. The tenant would gain an assignment
   of the easement rights through his or her leasehold interest while not succeeding to the fee simple title held by the
   owner. Thus, courts need not interpret one or the other of
   the two terms to be without meaning because effect can be
   given to each.”
Cite as 

 (2021)                                             535

Rosen v. Keeler, 411 NJ Super 439, 454-55, 

 (NJ App Div 2010). We agree with the Rosen court
that, as the Restatement example illustrates, a property
owner’s “assigns” refers to a different group from the owner’s “successors.” Thus, reasoning that the parties intended
the reference to the owners’ “heirs, successors and assigns”
simply to make the easement run with the land does not
result in surplusage.
          Those considerations alone are enough for us to
conclude that the parties unambiguously expressed their
intention to create an ordinary appurtenant easement,
not a hybrid appurtenant/in gross easement. However, we
also note that the text of the reservation indicates that the
“assigns” that it refers to are assignees “of the property,” not
assignees of the easement alone. Again, the deed reserves “A
beach access Easement along the Southerly 5 feet of Parcel
2 …, in favor of the owners, their heirs, successors and
assigns, of the following described property[.]” The phrase “of
the following described property” appears after “the owners,
their heirs, successors and assigns”; that placement strongly
suggests that the phrase applies to all of the items in the
list. If the parties had intended the qualifier “of the following described property” to apply only to the owners, they
would likely have—at a minimum5 —placed “of the following
described property” directly after “owners”; the reservation
would then have been “in favor of the owners of the following described property, their heirs, successors and assigns,”
providing at least some support for plaintiffs’ reading.
         In sum, the deed unambiguously creates an ordinary appurtenant easement, which cannot be severed and
transferred separately from the dominant estate. Jantzen
Beach Associates, LLC, 200 Or App at 464 (an appurtenant
easement “is not severable from the land”). The trial court
erred in relying on cases concerning easements in gross,
which are personal and transferrable separately from interests in land. Sunset Lake, 

 (“Easements
    5
      As noted above, we have concluded that the inclusion of the terms “successors and assigns” indicates an intention to create an ordinary appurtenant
easement. If the parties to an easement intended to create a novel hybrid appurtenant/in gross easement, we doubt they would express that intention merely
through placing “of the property” after “owners.”
536                           Block v. DEA Properties-2 LLC

in gross which have commercial value are assignable.”).
Accordingly, the court erred in declaring that the easement
assignment agreements were valid and enforceable.
        We turn, briefly, to Block’s cross-appeal. At trial, the
court heard evidence on DEA’s counterclaim for an implied
easement over a driveway on parcel 1, which is now owned
by Block. The court held that DEA had established the existence of an implied easement by clear and convincing evidence and entered judgment in favor of DEA on its counterclaim. Block appeals, contending that the court erred in
determining that DEA has an implied easement over the
driveway.
        “When land in one ownership is divided into separately
   owned parts by a conveyance, an easement may be created
   … by implication from the circumstances under which
   the conveyance was made alone. That is, an implied easement is created when the circumstances that exist at the
   time of severance of a parcel establish that the grantor of
   the parcel intended to create an easement.”
Manusos v. Skeels, 

, 

(2014) (omission in Manusos; internal quotation marks and
citations omitted). “[S]everance of a parcel refers to the division of ownership of land[.]” 

 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
         In this case, the relevant severance took place in
1997, when the Hatch heirs sold parcel 2 to DeCarrico and
retained ownership of parcel 1. However, in reaching its
determination that an implied easement exists, the trial
court relied significantly on events and circumstances that
took place later. For example, it relied on the beliefs and
actions of Block and Anderson, who purchased their properties after 1997; it evaluated the necessity of the easement
based on the circumstances at the time of trial, rather than
the circumstances that existed in 1997; and it considered
the use of the property and the parties’ knowledge of that
use since 1997, rather than at the time of the Hatch heirs’
1997 conveyance to DeCarrico. That was error.
         The question before the court was whether an
easement arose “as an inference of the intention of the parties to a conveyance of land”—here, the Hatch heirs and
Cite as 

 (2021)                             537

DeCarrico—“based on the circumstances existing at the
time of the conveyance”—here, in December 1997. Eagles
Five, LLC v. Lawton, 

, 

(2012). As a result of the court’s incorrect legal analysis, it
did not make explicit or implicit findings of fact on many of
the relevant issues. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for
the trial court to reevaluate the evidence under the correct
legal standard.
        Reversed and remanded on appeal and cross-appeal.