The Case of the Uneasy Easement - T3BE45
Added 2024-10-23 09:03:44 +0000 UTCIt's OA Bar Prep with Heather! First we get the answer to last week's pizza predicament, and then we get question 45 - the case of the uneasy easement!
Patrons, submit your answers below! But also, feel free to double up and submit on reddit.com/r/openargs
Comments
I hope I heard it right when heather said that the company was 'mintendo'.
lauren
2024-10-27 17:31:56 +0000 UTCC I believe an easement survives a change in ownership, which eliminates A and B since the amusement park company would have existing rights to the easement. Between C and D, D discusses an installation that was not part of the original agreement, the wind turbines, so C is the correct response.
The Great State of Denial
2024-10-25 17:55:40 +0000 UTCDid anyone else hear a ghost complaining about 13th century Saxony?
Brian Pemberton
2024-10-25 15:14:07 +0000 UTCHmm I chose A because Betty seems to be totally in the right since the deed didn't say anything about an easement. But now I think about it, the go kart people haven't done anything wrong, they're just stating what they intend to do. I find it hard to believe they could do the turbines but as yet they haven't done anything, and seem to be acting in good faith by telling Betty their plan. I'm staying with A now I've picked it but I think you're right.
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2024-10-24 23:27:40 +0000 UTCC. The easement still being valid is the more interesting world so I'll choose to believe in that one. The wind turbines are silly.
Qaysed
2024-10-24 13:38:14 +0000 UTCI do feel like Betty has the right to sue the person who sold here the land without telling her about the easement…but what do I know, I’m not a lawyer.
Not that millionaire
2024-10-24 00:49:11 +0000 UTCI’m going with C because I don’t think there’s a time limit on easements. However, since it was for a go-cart track only and not wind turbines I think they are limited to the track. Otherwise, you could build anything, like a nuclear waste dump and that doesn’t seem right.
Not that millionaire
2024-10-24 00:47:42 +0000 UTCI can't help feeling like this should go in favor of Betty Botanist, apparently nobody told her about the easement. If she knew the land would be full of go karts and screaming kids she probably wouldn't have bought the land. Also an easement seems like a weird and dumb arrangement for the amusement company. I thought easements were like You have grass, I have cows, please can my cows come over and eat your grass. But my cows and I are not your tenants and my agreement is with you, so if you sell your field to someone else I don't think they are obligated to have my cows wander around their land. So A.
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2024-10-23 21:59:41 +0000 UTCI've decided to use Air Bud law and declare that ain't no rules says a librarian can't do research. This was probably a mistake as I've now gotten myself twisted into knots over the distinction between an easement appurtenant and an easement in gross. My sources tell me that courts generally presume appurtenant until proven in gross (this is how you know I'm not a lawyer--I don't speak fluent Legalese), especially if the easement benefits a specific parcel of land. I think one could reasonably argue that a landowner would enjoy the ability to go-kart without leaving his property, especially if someone else maintains the track. An easement appurtenant is tied to the land, so it automatically transfers when the property is sold, whether the deed says so or not. However, I do believe that the easement would specify the intended use of the land, and the fact pattern did not specify that the wind turbines would be installed for the purpose of operating the go-kart track. Therefore, I'm going with C, which was my gut instinct all along. So this analysis is either a stellar example of confirmation bias or a complicated answer to an easy question. Okay, now I'm gonna go do my actual job because I have spent entirely too much time on recreational research. 😅
Kait from Seattle
2024-10-23 16:33:24 +0000 UTCI'm going to go with B because I felt betrayed by last week's question, and figure that at least one person should choose the least intuitive answer.
Peter Olson
2024-10-23 15:33:02 +0000 UTCThank you for all the Princess Bride quotes😁
Reese
2024-10-23 13:43:12 +0000 UTCI am going with C. I don't really know anything about easements, but assuming it is still valid, it only gave permission for a track.
Mike M
2024-10-23 13:36:16 +0000 UTCI'd say A. No as to both. Perhaps some sort of squatters rights come up because of the open and notorious use of the property over the course of 30yrs without the company using the property. Plus, the sale 15 yrs ago seems to rely on the easement not existing anymore, since it wasn't included on the deed. Small books.
Xavier Branch
2024-10-23 11:36:44 +0000 UTC
