Confirm favorite deletion?
Property Keyed to Saxer
Simone v. Heidelberg
Facts
The parcels of property known as 157-159 Driggs and 163-165 Driggs are adjacent to each other. In 1933, the owners of each parcel created an easement. The owner of the dominant estate, 157-159 Driggs, obtained access to a portion of the servient estate, 163-165 Driggs Street, in order to access a garage located on the dominant estate. In 1978, the Accardos acquired both parcels. In 1982, the Accardos subdivided 163-165 Driggs into two. They transferred one of the subdivided parcels, 163 Driggs, to the Webers in a deed that did not reference the easement. In 1984, the Accardos transferred 157-159 Driggs to the Corrados. The terms of this deed did reference the easement, referring to 163 Driggs as the servient estate. In 1993, the Webers conveyed 163 Driggs to the plaintiffs. Although the deed did not reference the easement, the plaintiffs were aware that an easement had previously existed. In 1996, the Corrados conveyed 157-159 Driggs to the defendants in a deed that referenced the easement. But by 2003, the garage on the defendants’ property was no longer used for storing cars, in part because a tree and a fence on the defendants’ property blocked access to the garage. Additionally, the Webers had constructed a permanent deck on the servient property over part of the easement area. In December 2003, the defendants removed the tree and fence in order to make use of the easement. Plaintiffs sued, seeking a declaration that the easement was unenforceable. The defendants counterclaimed for a declaration that the easement was enforceable or, in the alternative, that the easement survived by necessity. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the easement had extinguished when the Accardos became the common owners of both parcels, and that it had not been re-created because the deed transferring the servient estate did not reference the easement. The Appellate Division reversed, stating that, although the easement was extinguished by merger, it had been re-created because the deed conveying the dominant estate referenced the easement and the owners of the servient estate were aware of its existence.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.