Will v. Gates, 89 N.Y.2d 778 (1997)
An easement acquired by grant is not extinguished by merger unless there is a complete unity of title between all dominant and servient estates; partial unity does not terminate the easement rights of other dominant owners.
Summary
Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment to establish their right to a right-of-way over the defendants’ properties. The defendants argued that the easement was extinguished by merger when they acquired a parcel that included both dominant and servient estates. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants, holding that merger requires complete unity of title between all dominant and servient estates. Since not all dominant and servient estates were under common ownership, the easement remained valid, and the case was remitted for further consideration of other defenses.
Facts
Judge Garrison created a horseshoe-shaped right-of-way when he subdivided his property in 1868, recorded as map No. 32. The right-of-way consisted of northern, southern, and north-south spurs. The plaintiffs, the Wills, acquired a parcel abutting the southern spur in 1977, with a deed granting a non-exclusive easement over the right-of-way depicted on map No. 32. The defendants, the Gates, acquired a parcel west of the north-south spur in 1977, with a deed containing identical language granting a right-of-way over the horseshoe-shaped easement. In 1991, the Gates sold a southern portion of their residential lot, restricting the buyer’s easement rights to the southern spur and extinguishing any rights to the north-south spur over the Gates’ residential parcel.
Procedural History
The Wills sued the Swinburne-Browers (the buyers of the southern portion of the Gates’ property) in a prior action, which established the Swinburne-Browers’ right-of-way through the Wills’ property via the southern spur. The Wills then commenced the present action seeking access to the north-south spur. Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the Gates, holding the Wills’ interest had been extinguished by abandonment and adverse possession. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the easement was extinguished by merger. The Court of Appeals reversed and remitted the case.
Issue(s)
Whether an easement is extinguished by merger when the owner of a portion of the servient estate acquires a portion of the dominant estate, but complete unity of title between all dominant and servient estates does not exist.
Holding
No, because an easement ceases to exist by merger only when there is unity of title of all the dominant and servient estates.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that an easement appurtenant passes with the grant of the land, even if not expressly mentioned in the deed. Such an easement remains unless conveyed, abandoned, condemned, or lost through prescription. The defendants argued that when the Gates acquired the westerly parcel in 1977, it created a merger because they already owned the servient estate (the residential lot). The Court explained that the merger doctrine stems from the principle that a person cannot have an easement in their own land. However, the Court emphasized that merger requires complete unity of title: “An easement ceases to exist by virtue of a merger only when there is a unity of title of all the dominant and servient estates.” Because other dominant owners existed, and the Gates did not own all of the dominant and servient estates, the easement was not extinguished. The Court found the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on merger grounds and remitted the case for consideration of adverse possession, abandonment, and other unresolved issues. The Court cited the Restatement of Property § 497, comment c, which states that an easement is “not extinguished under the doctrine of merger by the acquisition by the owner of the dominant or servient estate to title to only a fractional part of the other estate.”