Question

Mary-Kate and Ashley are sisters. They owned two adjoining estates in East Hampton, New York. The two estates had originally been one large property, but when Mary-Kate and Ashley bought it in 1990, they decided to split it evenly into two 50 acre parcels. For more than 15 years, Ashley, her employees, and her friends and other guests accessed a lake that they used for swimming in the summer and ice skating in the winter by hopping a fence and using a pre-existing pathway across Mary-Kate’s property. Mary-Kate became embroiled in a messy divorce with her husband Olivier and decided that she no longer wanted to live on the East Coast, and in 2005, she sold the property to her other sister Elizabeth. Elizabeth does not like Ashley, and upon purchasing the estate, Elizabeth had a 10-foot tall brick wall constructed that blocked the pathway.

a. Ashley seeks an injunction to have the wall removed claiming to have an easement by prescription. Will Elizabeth be successful? (10 Points)

b. If the pathway is the only way for Ashley to access the lake, can she make a claim for another type easement? If so, which kind and why? (10 Points)

c. Based on the facts of this case, assuming there is an easement, is this an easement appurtenant or an easement in gross? Why? (5 Points)

d. Rather than go to court, Ashley decides to offer Elizabeth a large sum of money to remove the wall and allow Ashley to keep using the pathway. Elizabeth is short on cash and agrees. Elizabeth signs a deed of easement expressly granting Ashley an easement over Elizabeth’s property “for use as a connecting walk to access the lake.” Five years later, Ashley decides that she no longer likes the East Coast either, so she sells her property to a developer who builds a 50 room hotel and resort on the property. Elizabeth has another 10-foot tall brick wall constructed to stop the hotel guests from using the pathway seeks an injunction to have the wall removed. Will the hotel owner be successful? What argument can Elizabeth make? (5 Points)

Answer 1

a. In this case there are fewer chances that Elizabeth can win the case as the pathway is connected to the estate and if Ashley files an injuction then the court will demand to remove the wall that is creating a problem to the owner that has been hurted .

b. The court will check if there is any chances of easment that can be used as a pathway for Ashley in her own estate premies, if not then the court will ask Elizabeth to either remove the wall or court will issue order to remove .

c. in this case it is easement in gross becasue the land is not transfered to Ashley. It is the premises that is given as a access to be used by Ashley as per the order from the court if she has moved legally.

d.