Dayton v. Jordan

Whether a sale of land creates an implied easement is determined on a case by case basis. The dispositive question is whether a reasonable purchaser would expect the easement under the circumstances in which he or she purchased the land.

Dayton appealed the trial court’s limited grant of summary judgment on Jordan’s counterclaim which held that Jordan had an implied easement over a road that runs through Dayton and Jordan’s property. Jordan argued that when a landowner plats property and conveys lots by reference to the plat, the purchaser of the lot acquires by implication an easement in all streets, parks, or other open areas shown on the plat. Dayton argued that the trial court should have considered several factors established in Cheney v. Mueller. 259 Or 108, 118-19, 485 P2d 1218 (1971). Whether an implied easement exists is determined on a case by case basis, and can include an analysis of the following factors: whether the claimant is the conveyor or the conveyee, the terms of the conveyance, the consideration given for it, whether the claim is made against a simultaneous conveyee, the extent of necessity of the easement to the claimant, whether reciprocal benefits result to the conveyor and the conveyee, the manner in which the land was used prior to its conveyance, and the extent to which the manner of prior use was or might have been known to the parties. The Court held that the trial court incorrectly concluded that Jordan established an implied easement because it did not consider the “Cheney factors” and therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Reversed and remanded