In one of two opinions released today, the Supreme Court of Virginia clarifies the analysis of whether encroachments within an easement must be removed.
The Yosts own a 1.08-acre parcel in Dinwiddie County accessible via a 50-foot-wide easement for ingress and egress crossing land owned by Thibault Enterprises. The Yosts travel over an approximately 12-foot-wide gravel road situated within that easement. Thibault, which uses its land for agricultural purposes, placed fencing, grapevines, fence poles, and hay bales within the 50-foot easement boundaries but to the side of the gravel road. It did not place any objects within the road itself. The Yosts’ ingress and egress was “by and large not hampered.”
The Yosts sued, seeking an injunction compelling Thibault to remove all objects from the 50-foot width of the easement, characterizing the encroachments as a nuisance. The circuit court granted the injunction, finding that although the objects did not interfere with the Yosts’ current use, it was “improper” for Thibault to place anything in the easement. The Court of Appeals affirmed by unpublished opinion, reasoning that any objects within the defined width impermissibly “narrowed” the easement.
But the Supreme Court reversed and entered final judgment for Thibault. The Supreme Court held that the owner of a servient estate is not automatically required to remove all objects intruding into an easement of a defined width. Instead, the proper inquiry is twofold: first, courts should examine the language of the deed to determine the purpose of the easement and the intent of the parties; and second, courts should evaluate whether the servient owner’s actions unreasonably interfere with the easement. The Court grounded this holding in a line of precedent dating back 100 years, all of which applied a reasonableness standard rather than a per se rule against any encroachment.
The Court also addressed Code § 55.1-305, which prohibits the servient estate owner from causing objects to be present on the burdened land that “unreasonably interfere” with the dominant estate’s enjoyment. The Court found this statutory language reinforces the reasonableness standard rather than an absolute prohibition.
In a footnote, the Court acknowledged the Yosts’ concern about potential prescriptive extinguishment of the easement but declined to resolve that issue, noting persuasive authority suggesting that permissible uses of the servient land, such as farming, do not necessarily start the prescriptive clock. In a separate footnote, the Court also noted that changed circumstances, such as increased traffic or erosion making the gravel road inadequate, could warrant a different result in the future.
A Virginia Appellate Law Blog 