Ads
related to: easement by necessity in alabamaA tool that fits easily into your workflow - CIOReview
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
An easement by necessity is distinguished from an easement by implication in that the easement by necessity arises only when "strictly necessary", whereas the easement by implication can arise when "reasonably necessary". Easement by necessity is a higher standard by which to imply an easement.
Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) LR 12 Ch D 31 is an English land law case confirming and governing a means of the implied grant or grants of easements — the implied grant of all continuous and apparent inchoate easements (quasi easements, that is they would be easements if the land were not before transfer in the unity of possession and title) to a transferee of part, unless expressly excluded.
The lack of any property interest removes the necessity and the easement. The doctrine of merger is used by municipal governments to treat adjacent lots in common ownership as a single lot for land-use and zoning purposes, such as two lots that are nonconforming due to sub-minimal size for development, but would have sufficient size if combined ...
United States v. Alabama, 325 U.S.. 602 (1960), was a Supreme Court case in which the court held that, after the Civil Rights Act of 1960 was signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on May 6, 1960, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama now had jurisdiction to hear a challenge against Alabama for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
The necessity of easements is shown by the Law Commission's 2008 statistical finding that express easements exist over or under at least 65% of registered freehold titles. [3] In many cases it is impossible for a land owner or tenant to access a public highway without an easement of a right of way over intervening land.
When a structural encroachment is created intentionally, it is basically an easement in gross, and may be done by a permit to a government authority. [ 2 ] [ 3 ] A zoning law may also restrict an intentional structural encroachment.
Lord Denning MR held that an easement could be implied so Mr Wong could comply with his obligations under the lease. He cited Pwllbach Colliery Co Ltd v Woodman on common intentions and said, ‘That is the principle which underlies all easements of necessity.’ [1]
An easement that is not registered will be recognised as an over-riding interest according to LRA 2002 Schedule 3, paragraph 3, if known to a person to whom land is sold and if the easement is obvious on a reasonably careful inspection, but only if the easement is acquired at law (not equity) since 13 October 2003. [184]