## Facts

- Parcel A (servient) was subject to a 1952 private road easement appurtenant to Parcel B (dominant) for ingress and egress to Parcel B.
- Parcel C, adjacent to Parcel B, was not included in the 1952 easement grant and had no easement rights over Parcel A.
- The Vosses purchased Parcel A in 1973.
- The Browns purchased Parcel B in April 1977 and Parcel C in July 1977, and planned to build a single-family residence straddling the B–C boundary.
- The Browns began clearing and filling the property in November 1977, spending over $11,000 on development.
- In April 1979, the Vosses obstructed the easement area on Parcel A with logs, a concrete sump, and a chain-link fence to prevent access associated with Parcel C.
- The Browns sued to remove the obstructions, to enjoin interference with easement use, and for damages; the Vosses counterclaimed for an injunction limiting the easement to Parcel B and for damages.
- The trial court found the Browns’ use was not unreasonable and did not increase the volume of travel or burden on Parcel A, and that Parcel C would effectively be landlocked without use of the road.

## Issues

1. Whether an easement appurtenant to Parcel B may be used to benefit an adjacent, later-acquired Parcel C when the combined use does not increase the burden on the servient estate.
2. If such use is a technical misuse, whether equity should deny injunctive relief under the circumstances.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Washington held the Browns’ use of the easement to access Parcel C exceeded the easement’s scope and was a technical misuse because the easement was appurtenant only to Parcel B.
- The court nevertheless reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment denying an injunction.
- The Browns were permitted to continue using the easement to access a single-family residence spanning Parcels B and C, subject to the condition that Parcels B and C be used for only one single-family dwelling.
- The court affirmed nominal damages and left intact the trial court’s equitable conditions, concluding there was no abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- An easement appurtenant to one parcel generally may not be extended to serve other parcels owned by the dominant owner when the easement is not appurtenant to those parcels.
- Misuse of an easement does not automatically require injunctive relief; equitable remedies are discretionary.
- In deciding whether to enjoin misuse, courts may consider relative hardship, reasonableness of the use, the extent of actual injury to the servient estate, and whether the servient estate bears any additional burden.
- A court may condition equitable relief to prevent increased burden and to approximate the original contemplated use of the easement.

## Conclusion

The court reaffirmed that an appurtenant easement cannot be expanded to benefit a non-dominant parcel, but held that equity may deny an injunction for technical misuse when the servient owner suffers no material additional burden and the hardship to the dominant owner would be disproportionate, especially where use is limited to a single residence.


Brown v. Voss, 105 Wash. 2d 366, 715 P.2d 514 (1986)