## Facts

- In 1838, the servient owner’s predecessor granted the dominant owner’s predecessor a right-of-way across the servient land “with teams loaded or not, carriages of any kind, stock, on horseback, or on foot,” with minimal damage, to the grantee and successors forever.
- At the time of the grant, the dominant estate consisted of about 102 acres.
- Over time, the dominant owner acquired additional contiguous parcels, expanding total holdings to about 257 acres.
- The dominant owners used the right-of-way not only to serve the original parcel, but also to access and service additional acreage with farm equipment, to serve a newly built house on an adjoining parcel, and to accommodate social guests (including an event involving many automobiles).
- The trial court found the use of the way had materially increased and burdened the servient land beyond the right granted, and that certain uses constituted trespass for which damages would lie.
- The trial court further found there was no practical way to separate permissible use from excessive use, that limiting use by injunction would be unenforceable, and entered judgment extinguishing the easement.
- The dominant owners appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether excessive or improper use of a right-of-way easement justifies forfeiture or extinguishment of the easement.
2. Whether an easement may be terminated on the ground that permissible and impermissible uses are allegedly impractical to separate and police.

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the judgment extinguishing the easement.
- The court held that misuse or overuse does not, by itself, extinguish or forfeit an easement.
- The court rejected extinguishment as the remedy on this record and directed that the dominant owners be given an opportunity to propose a plan or framework permitting continued lawful use while restricting excessive use.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the continued existence of the easement and the availability of narrower remedies.

## Legal Principles

- Increased use or overburdening of an easement generally supports remedies such as damages or injunctive restrictions; it does not automatically terminate the easement.
- Forfeiture of a vested property right is disfavored in equity and requires clear justification.
- Extinguishment based on misuse is appropriate, if at all, only when the misuse cannot be separated from the rightful exercise of the easement.
- Courts should prefer enforceable, tailored relief that limits use to the scope of the grant (including limits by parcel served, purpose, or traffic characteristics) rather than terminating the easement outright.

## Conclusion

A long-standing right-of-way is not forfeited merely because the dominant owner’s use has expanded beyond the scope of the original grant; unless improper use is inseparable from permissible use, the proper course is to preserve the easement and apply narrower remedies to restrain overburdening.


Frenning v. Dow, 544 A.2d 145 (R.I. 1988)