Cox v. Glenbrook Co. case brief

Cox v. Glenbrook Co. case brief summary
371 P.2d 647 (Nev. 1962)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Appellant developers of the dominant estate sought review of the judgment of the First Judicial District Court, Douglas County (Nevada), which declared that the developers' easement over appellee servient estate was limited.

CASE FACTS
The servient estate granted the predecessor an easement over the estate to reach the predecessor's estate. At the time of the conveyance, the predecessor used his estate as a single-family residence and used a one-lane dirt road to reach the residence. There was another road through the servient estate to the dominant estate, but the servient estate blocked that road with a fence. The developers obtained the estate, planned to subdivide it into 40 to 60 lots and widened the dirt road. The servient estate sought a declaration of the extent of the easement. 

DISCUSSION

• The court found that: 
• (1) the district court erred in restricting the easement where the wording of the easement unambiguously stated "full right of use," 
• (2) the developers could maintain, repair or improve the way, 
• (3) the developers could not, however, widen the way as the road was to remain the same width as the date of conveyance of the easement, 
• (4) the servient estate could barricade the other road as it had the right to move roads according to the easement, and 
• (5) the court could not declare whether the proposed use of the way would cause an unreasonable burden upon the servient estate.

CONCLUSION

The court modified the judgment and remanded.

NOTES
D owned land subject to an easement for access from Cox’s land; the parties contested the extent of the easement when D wanted to subdivide his land and allow subsequent owners to use the easement, also wanted to widen.

1. Rule: When the grant is unclear, the extent of the easement must be construed as broadly as necessary to carry out the purposes for which it was granted.
2. Ps tried to argue just for family of original grantee, but Ct thought it was erroneous, grant was not for the person but for ingress/egress of the land.
3. Ok for holder of an easement to prepare, maintain, improve, or repair for the purposes the easement was created, but can’t cause undue burden on servient estate. (could not widen the road)