Can an easement granted in 1938 be expanded to accommodate the current property owners' plans for subdivision without the consent of the servient estate?

In 1938, Glenbrook Company granted Henry Quill an easement for 'full right of use' over its roads to access Quill's 80-acre property. The property changed hands twice: first to Kenneth F. Johnson in 1945 for $8,600, and then to Cox and Detrick in 1960 for $250,000. Cox and Detrick intend to subdivide the property into 40-60 parcels of one acre or more, each with a residence and guesthouse, and have invested approximately $17,000 in preliminary development work.

The Quill Easement serves as the only existing ingress and egress for the property. Glenbrook Company operates a family resort business on its land, which includes various amenities and is known for its peaceful atmosphere. The roads through Glenbrook's property are generally unpaved, with the main road being the only way in or out. The 'back road' leading to the Cox and Detrick property is narrow, unpaved, and was originally constructed for limited use.

Glenbrook Company initiated the legal proceedings by filing a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment concerning the Quill Easement's scope and extent. Cox and Detrick responded with an answer and counterclaim, also requesting a declaratory judgment on the same matter. The case proceeded to a bench trial, where it was heard by the court without a jury. Following the trial, the lower court issued a judgment that imposed limitations on the easement's use. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Cox and Detrick appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Nevada.

(Thompson, J.)

No. An easement granted in 1938 cannot be expanded to accommodate current property owners' plans for subdivision without the consent of the servient estate. The phrase 'full right of use' in the original easement grant is clear and unambiguous, and cannot be interpreted to mean an expanded or unrestricted right of use. While the easement is appurtenant to the dominant estate and can be used by those who succeed to possession of the entire estate or parts of it if subdivided, this does not grant the right to expand the easement beyond its original scope. The owners of the easement may maintain, repair, and improve the way within certain limitations, but are expressly prohibited from widening it beyond its original width. This restriction preserves the balance between the rights of the dominant and servient estate owners. The principle of reasonable use applies to easements, meaning that while the easement holders have the right to use the easement for its intended purpose, they cannot unreasonably burden the servient estate. Expanding the easement to accommodate subdivision plans without consent would likely constitute an unreasonable burden. The determination of whether a particular use unreasonably burdens the servient estate depends on specific factual circumstances and cannot be definitively declared without evidence of the proposed use's impact. The servient estate owner retains certain rights, including the ability to relocate the easement at their own expense, further emphasizing the limitations on the dominant estate's rights to unilaterally modify the easement. These principles uphold the original intent of the easement grant while protecting the interests of both parties.

Concurrence (McNamee, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Concurrence (Badt, C.J.) The conclusions reached by Justice Thompson are correct. However, some expressions in the opinion might unduly limit the court's power in future Declaratory Judgments Act cases. An expressed purpose and intention to perform acts that will, under satisfactory proof, surcharge the servient tenement with an unreasonable burden is a present threat of invasion of plaintiff's rights. This is subject to declaratory determination and need not await the event. The court should retain flexibility to address such issues preemptively when appropriate.