Sweezey v. Neel, 2006 VT 38

Summary

The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed a dispute concerning encroachment on a deeded easement and the relocation of the easement around a house addition. The court upheld the trial court's authority to allow the easement to bend around the addition under the circumstances, but declined to adopt a rule permitting unilateral relocation of easements by servient landowners. The court also struck an advisory ruling restricting hypothetical future development of the dominant estate and otherwise affirmed the trial court's decision.

Holdings

1. Under the particular circumstances, the superior court did not err in allowing plaintiff to bend the easement around his permanent house addition rather than require its removal.
2. Vermont retains the general rule that an easement may not be relocated without the consent of both the dominant and servient landowners; the court declined to adopt the Restatement's unilateral-relocation approach.
3. The superior court improperly issued an advisory ruling limiting defendants' use of the easement for hypothetical future development, because no actual controversy existed on that issue.
4. The superior court did not abuse its discretion or otherwise commit reversible error in allowing a locked gate subject to access conditions, finding the utility poles outside the easement, or denying relief concerning the boulder and alleged flower damage.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the superior court erred by allowing plaintiff to bend the deeded easement around his encroaching house addition rather than requiring removal of the addition.
2. Whether Vermont should adopt the Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes rule permitting a servient landowner, with court approval, to unilaterally relocate an easement when the relocation would not materially impair the dominant estate.
3. Whether the superior court improperly issued an advisory ruling restricting use of the easement for hypothetical future development of the dominant estate.
4. Whether the superior court abused its discretion or otherwise erred in permitting a locked gate, determining that utility poles were outside the easement, and declining relief concerning a boulder and alleged damage to flowers.

Disposition

affirmed