## Facts

- Glenbrook Company owned resort and golf course property at Lake Tahoe, including roads crossing its land.
- An 80-acre upland tract (the dominant estate) was landlocked except for access across Glenbrook’s property.
- In 1938, Glenbrook granted a written “easement and right-of-way, with full right of use over the roads of the grantor as now located or as they may be located hereafter,” to the grantee “his heirs and assigns forever,” providing access from U.S. Route 50 to the 80 acres.
- The dominant estate later was conveyed to Cox and Detrick with appurtenant easements.
- Cox and Detrick planned a residential subdivision of roughly 40–60 lots and began preliminary work, including road leveling and other site preparations.
- Glenbrook objected, asserting the easement was intended to serve only a single-family type use and that subdivision traffic would overburden its resort property and roads.

## Issues

1. Whether the easement language granting “full right of use” to the grantee “his heirs and assigns forever” limited use to a single-family type use or permitted use by successors in title, including subdivision lot owners.
2. Whether increased traffic from a proposed residential subdivision would exceed the scope of the easement by impermissibly enlarging the burden on the servient estate.
3. Whether a court may, on a declaratory judgment record, preemptively restrict future subdivision use as an unreasonable burden without evidence of actual use and resulting impacts.
4. Whether extrinsic evidence may be used to narrow the scope of an easement grant stated in general, unambiguous terms.

## Decision

- The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the judgment in substantial part and remanded.
- The court held the easement’s terms were clear and authorized use by successors in title; it was not limited to Quill personally or to a single-family use.
- The court rejected restrictions tying the easement to the back road “as presently constructed” and disallowed reading a single-family limitation into the instrument.
- The court held it was premature to declare subdivision use an unreasonable burden absent concrete evidence of actual use and its effects.
- The court left open the possibility of later relief if actual use proved to unreasonably overburden the servient estate.

## Legal Principles

- Clear easement language controls; unambiguous grants are construed by their terms rather than narrowed by extrinsic evidence of unexpressed intent.
- Language granting an easement to the grantee “his heirs and assigns forever” indicates an easement appurtenant that runs with the dominant land and passes to successors.
- Subdivision of the dominant estate does not, by itself, terminate or restrict an appurtenant access easement; use may extend to subdivided parcels.
- An increase in the degree of use is generally permissible when the kind of use remains the same, but use may be limited if it becomes an unreasonable burden on the servient estate.
- Findings of unreasonable overburden should rest on evidence of actual conditions and impacts, not speculation about future development.

## Conclusion

The court held that an access easement granting “full right of use” to “heirs and assigns forever” ran with the land and could serve successor owners, including after subdivision, and that preemptive limits based on predicted overburden were improper without proof of actual unreasonable interference with the servient estate.


Cox v. Glenbrook Co., 78 Nev. 254, 371 P.2d 647 (Nev. 1962)