Can an Access Easement be Used to Access Abutting, After-Acquired Land?

Easements providing access to land are common enough.  But what if the owner of the land benefitted by an easement acquires an abutting parcel?  Can the person use the easement to access the additional land?  The New Hampshire Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in its order in the matter of William Ryan et al. v. Dawn Ryan. (Although the order is not an “opinion” of the New Hampshire Supreme Court and carries no precedential authority, it can provide guidance on how a New Hampshire court might rule if presented with similar facts.)  For simplicity, some facts have been modified.

Background

William and Corinne Ryan (plaintiffs) and Dawn Ryan (defendant) owned abutting properties in Wilton, New Hampshire. Originally, these properties were part of a larger parcel owned by Rosemary Duggan and William Ladd (Duggan and Ladd).

In 1996, Duggan and Ladd subdivided their land and sold Lot A to Deysher together with an easement over land retained by Duggan and Ladd (Lot B).  The easement read as follows:

"Together with an access easement (such being an encumbrance running with the land constituting [Lot B] on said plan of land) over a .386-acre area located on [Lot B] (including a portion of the 8’ farm road and bridge), as shown on said plan of land, for the limited purpose of allowing grantees, their heirs, successors and assigns access to and from that portion of the premises lying west of the stream spanned by said bridge and that portion of the premises lying east of said stream."

Via various subsequent plans and conveyances, a portion of other land owned by Duggan and Ladd in 1996 and which abutted Lot A at that time was annexed to Lot A, making Lot A larger.

The defendant acquired title to the expanded Lot A and disputes arose between the plaintiffs and defendant over the defendant’s use of the easement to access the annexed portion of Lot A, resulting in a suit by the owner of Lot B seeking to prevent this extended use of the easement by the owner of Lot A.

Superior court decision

The superior court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the easement was intended solely for access within the original Lot A. The court concluded the easement could not extend to other land the original grantor had retained and later transferred.

Supreme Court decision and rationale

On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the superior court’s order, concluding the language of the easement was clear and limited its use to the property as it existed when originally conveyed. The Court emphasized that any intent to extend the easement to additional, after-acquired land must be explicitly stated in the deed.

The Court rejected the defendant’s argument that the adjacent land had legally become part of the land benefitted by the easement, noting that neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors had agreed to expand the easement’s scope.

Justice Bassett dissented, concluding the deed’s language was ambiguous and could allow access to the adjacent land. He criticized the majority’s approach, asserting that New Hampshire law rejects strict limitations on easements in cases where the added use does not increase the burden on the servient estate. Justice Bassett recommended vacating and remanding the case for further proceedings to clarify the original intent and reasonable expectations of the easement’s creation.

For assistance with real estate or civil litigation matters, please contact Alfano Law at (603) 856-8411 or by filling out our Contact Form.  The firm offers free or low-cost initial consultations for most matters.