Question

A landowner owned a large parcel of land in a rural area. He built his home on the northern half of the property, and developed a large orchard of fruit trees on the southern portion. A county road ran in front of the northern portion. To service his orchard, the landowner built a driveway directly from the county road across the northern portion of the property to the orchard. To provide electricity to his house, the landowner ran an overhead power line across the orchard property to hook up to the only available electric power pole located on the far southern side of the property. Subsequently, the landowner conveyed the northern parcel to his brother and the southern parcel to his daughter, who said that she did not mind having the power line on the property. Recently, the brother has begun parking his car on the driveway, thus blocking the daughter’s access to the southern parcel. Finding no recorded document granting an easement for the power line, the daughter has decided to remove it. If the brother is successful in preventing the daughter from removing the power line, what is the likely reason?

Answer 1

The reason behind a positive result for the brother would be that his access to the powerline would be more difficult and expensive by a hundred times.

Step-by-step explanation:

First of all, let's analyze the context. In this scenario, we can see that there is no strong fundament from the daughter's side. This would incline the balance to his side because he would prove that he could perform an easement implied by operation of law. Wich would show the reason behind the initial construction of the power line. Because the owner divided the power line into a servient and dominant part, however changing the scheme right now would have no strong basis to be changed. So, it is very unreasonable. Because it works well and there is no danger or damage caused by the initial development.

Answer 2

Alternative power access for the brother is much less convenient and it would cost 100 times as much.

Step-by-step explanation:

When the brother succeeds in stopping the daughter from cutting the powerlines, this will be because the brother's alternative power connection is far less efficient and would cost 100 times as much as the present system.

This goes to prove that now the operation of law ("quasi-easement") implied an easement.

An easement may be inferred if a use occurs on the "servient part" before the time the property is divided, which is reasonably practicable for the benefit of the "dominant part," and a court finds that the parties planned the use to continue after the land was split.

To inevitably lead to an easement, a use at the time the property is divided must be apparent and continuous.

The landowner, in this particular instance, was using the servient part of his land (the southern parcel) to operate overhead wires lines to the dominant part of his land (the northern parcel).

Horizontal cables are clearly evident on fair examination, and will be readily discoverable. So the lines are clear. Usage always needs to be fair.

If a use is reasonably practicable depends on many things, including the alternatives expense and complexity.