## Facts

- Edwin F. Camp and Margaret R. Camp owned land in Jefferson County, Alabama and wanted an artificial lake built on their property.
- Jay E. Milam, an engineer and contractor, agreed to build an earthen dam to create the lake in exchange for a future conveyance of land and the right to use the lake.
- On October 26, 1959, the parties signed a written agreement providing that Milam would construct the dam in return for 40 acres (to be described later) and that “free access to the entire lake will be available to both parties.”
- Milam completed the dam around 1960–1961, and the Milams thereafter used the lake for recreational purposes.
- In 1965, after the Milams decided to build a home near the lake, the Camps conveyed a tract of about 25 acres to A.C. Barrett & Associates, Inc., a corporation owned and controlled by the Milam family.
- The 1965 deed stated it was subject to restrictions and limitations contained in a separate written agreement dated June 15, 1965, addressing matters such as lake level, a 10‑foot strip retained by the Camps around the lake for a walkway/roadway, limits on construction between the grantee’s tract and the lake, and contemplated “mutual easements” to assure access.
- The corporation then conveyed the 25‑acre tract to the Milams, who built and occupied a residence there.
- With the Camps’ knowledge and consent, the Milams also constructed improvements (including a boathouse and a stable) on land retained by the Camps.
- After several years of use, the Camps sued in equity to restrict the Milams’ use of the lake and to require them to stop using it, treating any permission as revocable.
- The Milams filed a cross-bill asserting that the agreements and conveyances gave them water rights in the lake amounting to an easement (and covenant) running with their land.

## Issues

1. Whether the Milams’ lake-use rights were merely a revocable license, as the Camps claimed, or a nonrevocable property interest such as an easement running with the land.
2. If the Camps could not revoke the permission, what legal interest (if any) the Milams held and whether it ran with the Milams’ land.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama rejected treating the arrangement as an easement appurtenant running with the Milams’ land.
- The court held that, based on the parties’ agreement and Milam’s performance and expenditures, the Camps were not permitted in equity to revoke Milam’s permission to use the lake; the right was an executed (irrevocable) license for the use contemplated by the parties.
- The cause was reversed and remanded for entry of relief consistent with recognizing an irrevocable license rather than an easement running with the land.

## Legal Principles

- An easement is an interest in land and, in general, must be created by a legally effective grant (or arise by prescription or implication); courts do not treat informal or incomplete language as creating an easement appurtenant when the instruments do not clearly grant one.
- A license is permission to do an act on another’s land that, without permission, would be a trespass; a license is typically revocable and does not transfer an interest in land.
- When a landowner grants permission as part of a bargain and the licensee materially changes position by expending labor or money in reliance on that permission (an “executed” license), equity may prevent revocation.
- An irrevocable license protects the licensee’s use to the extent and for the purposes contemplated by the parties, but it is not the same as an easement appurtenant and ordinarily does not run with the land.
- Longstanding, open use with the landowner’s knowledge, together with substantial expenditures (such as constructing a dam and related improvements), supports equitable protection against later attempted revocation.

## Conclusion

In *Camp v. Milam*, the Alabama Supreme Court held that although the parties’ dealings did not create an easement appurtenant running with the Milams’ land, Milam’s bargained-for construction of the dam and subsequent expenditures made the Camps’ permission to use the artificial lake irrevocable in equity as an executed license, and the case was remanded for relief consistent with that characterization.


Camp v. Milam, 277 So. 2d 95 (1973)