The Easement That Moved With the Driveway
In 1998, Amara granted her neighbor Ben a written easement "for ingress and egress over the gravel drive running along the north edge of Lot 7." The grant was recorded. In 2015, a storm washed out the north drive, and Ben began using a paved path along the south edge of Lot 7 instead. Amara never objected and Ben has used the south path continuously since. In 2022, Amara sold Lot 7 to Chen, who had notice of the recorded easement but not of the south-path use. Chen now wants to block Ben from the south path and confine him to the (still unrepaired) north drive. The easement document does not mention relocation, and the jurisdiction follows the traditional rule that the location of an expressly granted easement is fixed by the grant.
1. Can Chen force Ben back to the north drive, and does Ben have any argument that the easement relocated?
Read the worked answer
Fixed location. Under the traditional rule, an express easement's location is set by the granting instrument. The grant specifies the north edge gravel drive. A court generally cannot relocate an express easement merely because the original route became inconvenient or impassable, absent a document term, consent, or a statute authorizing relocation. Chen, as a purchaser with record notice, takes subject to the easement as written - but also gets the benefit of its limits.
Ben's arguments. (1) Practical necessity / frustration: if the north drive is truly unusable and no reasonable substitute exists within the granted route, some courts allow relocation to effectuate the parties' intent. That is a minority, fact-heavy argument and Ben must show the north route cannot be restored at reasonable cost. (2) Prescriptive easement over the south path: Ben has used it openly since 2015, but he needs the statutory period (commonly 10–20 years depending on jurisdiction) and his use must be adverse to Amara. Because he already held an express easement for access, a court may find his use of the alternate route was under color of the existing easement rather than hostile.
Conclusion. Chen likely wins the relocation question unless Ben proves the north route is impracticable. Ben's prescriptive claim is weak on hostility but worth pleading if the period has run.
2. If Ben's prescriptive claim over the south path succeeds, what happens to the original express easement, and how does Chen's 2022 purchase affect it?
Read the worked answer
Coexistence or merger. A prescriptive easement over the south path would be a separate, narrower right - typically limited to the use that created it (ingress and egress), not a fee or an exclusive right. It would not automatically extinguish the express easement over the north drive; the two can coexist, though a court may find the express easement abandoned if Ben's exclusive, long-term nonuse of the north route shows intent to abandon. Mere nonuse, without intent, does not abandon an easement.
Effect of Chen's purchase. Easements run with the land. Chen took Lot 7 subject to the recorded express easement and, if the prescriptive period ripened before 2022, subject to the prescriptive easement as well - recording does not defeat a prescriptive right that already vested. If the period had not yet run by 2022, Chen's purchase does not reset the clock; prescription runs against successive owners. Chen's lack of actual knowledge of the south-path use matters only if the use was not open and notorious, which a visible paved path likely defeats.
Exam takeaway. Distinguish the scope of each easement, whether abandonment occurred, and whether the prescriptive period was complete at the time of transfer.