This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Lindsey v. Clark: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=Virginia Supreme Court |date=March 10, 1952 |subject=Property |case_treatment=No |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link |link=https:/...") |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|date=March 10, 1952 | |date=March 10, 1952 | ||
|subject=Property | |subject=Property | ||
| | |facts=Floyd Clark owned 4 adjoining lots with his wife Helen. In 1937, the Clark couple conveyed 2 of the adjoining lots to their daughter & her husband. | ||
The Clark progeny couple sold their lots with a Clark easement to Lindsey in 1944. The 1944 deed didn't specify any easement! | |||
|procedural_history=Lindsey sued to enjoin the progenitor Clark couple from using a driveway easement in the Lindsey property acquired from the progeny Clark couple in 1944. | |||
Lindsey loses as the trial court determined that the progeny Clark couples hadn't '''abandoned''' the driveway easement on the Lindsey lots. | |||
|issues=Does a party abandon a deeded easement through dis-use? | |||
|holding='''Abandonment''' of a deeded easement requires non-use + acquiescence to the servient property owner's adverse use for a sufficient time period. | |||
|rule="Use it or lose it" is the maxim related to an abandonment of an [[easement]]; on the other hand, verbally informing the property owner of the plan to not use an easement any longer is '''release'''. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/supreme-court/1952/3905-1.html | |link=https://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/supreme-court/1952/3905-1.html | ||
| Line 9: | Line 17: | ||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/lindsey-v-clark | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/lindsey-v-clark | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:41, July 14, 2023
| Lindsey v. Clark | |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | March 10, 1952 |
Facts
Floyd Clark owned 4 adjoining lots with his wife Helen. In 1937, the Clark couple conveyed 2 of the adjoining lots to their daughter & her husband.
The Clark progeny couple sold their lots with a Clark easement to Lindsey in 1944. The 1944 deed didn't specify any easement!Procedural History
Lindsey sued to enjoin the progenitor Clark couple from using a driveway easement in the Lindsey property acquired from the progeny Clark couple in 1944.
Lindsey loses as the trial court determined that the progeny Clark couples hadn't abandoned the driveway easement on the Lindsey lots.Issues
Does a party abandon a deeded easement through dis-use?
Holding
Abandonment of a deeded easement requires non-use + acquiescence to the servient property owner's adverse use for a sufficient time period.
Rule
"Use it or lose it" is the maxim related to an abandonment of an easement; on the other hand, verbally informing the property owner of the plan to not use an easement any longer is release.
