- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Property Law
- Date Filed: 02-12-2020
- Case #: A166490
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Tookey, J., for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Shorr, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Plaintiffs appealed from a judgment determining Defendants had an implied easement over a disputed road on Plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs assigned error to the trial court's rejection of Plaintiffs’ contention that the easement was foreclosed under ORS 92.075. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the effect of ORS 92.075, which requires that any easement created by a plat be stated by the declarant in a signed declaration, is that any easement based on a plat must be express, and that no easement may be implied from a plat. “In order to subdivide or partition any property, the declarant shall include on the face of the subdivision or partition plat, if a partition plat is required, a declaration […] stating that the declarant has caused the subdivision or partition plat to be prepared and the property subdivided or partitioned in accordance with the provisions of this chapter […] any public or private easements created, or any other restriction made, shall be stated in the declaration.” ORS 92.075(1). The Court held that ORS 92.075 sets forth the legal requirements for establishing a plat and does not foreclose the existence of an implied easement. Affirmed.