Block v. DEA Properties-2 LLC

Under Miller v. Jones, 256 Or App 392 (2013) and Jantzen Beach Associates v. Jantzen Dynamic Corp., 200 Or App 457 (2005), an appurtenant easement gives the owner of the dominant estate a benefit by virtue of their ownership of the land, is transferred with the land, and is not severable from the ownership of the land.

DEA Properties-2, LLC (DEA) appealed a general judgment declaring Block's assignment of a beach-access easement to third parties valid. On appeal, DEA argued that an appurtenant easement cannot be assigned a party that does not own the dominant estate and that the term "assigns" in the text of the easement's reservation "refer[red] to assignees of the property, not assignees of the easement separately from ownership of the property." In response, Block argued that the term "assigns" in the reservation "unambiguously indicate[d] the parties' intention to allow separate assignment of the beach-access easement." Block also cross-appealed the trial court's grant of an implied easement to DEA over Block's land. Under Miller v. Jones, 256 Or App 392 (2013) and Jantzen Beach Associates v. Jantzen Dynamic Corp., 200 Or App 457 (2005), an appurtenant easement gives the owner of the dominant estate a benefit by virtue of their ownership of the land, is transferred with the land, and is not severable from the ownership of the land. The Court found that the deed reserving the easement unambiguously created an ordinary appurtenant easement by using standard language to indicate the easement was to run with the land. Reversed and remanded on appeal and cross-appeal.