## Facts

- The Greens owned a tract of land and sold the northern portion to the Lupos on a real estate contract, retaining adjoining acreage to the south.
- While still paying, the Lupos requested a partial deed release to obtain construction financing; the Greens agreed in exchange for the Lupos’ written promise to grant an easement along the southern 30 feet of the north tract once the Lupos obtained title.
- The written agreement granted the Greens an easement “for ingress and egress for road and utilities purposes,” but did not specify whether it was appurtenant to land or personal to the Greens.
- The Greens later developed their retained land for mobile-home occupancy; some occupants used the easement area for motorcycle riding, creating conflict.
- After the Lupos obtained title, they refused to execute the promised easement deed and obstructed access by placing logs along the boundary.
- The Greens sued for specific performance of the promised easement and to enjoin interference with its use.

## Issues

1. Whether parol evidence was admissible to construe an ambiguous written easement agreement that did not state whether the easement was appurtenant or in gross.
2. Whether the promised easement for ingress, egress, and utilities was appurtenant to the Greens’ retained land or merely personal to the Greens.
3. Whether the trial court properly imposed a complete ban on motorcycle use over the easement.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the decree that treated the easement as personal to the Greens.
- The court held parol evidence was properly admitted to resolve the ambiguity, but the trial court erred in concluding the easement was in gross.
- The court held the easement was appurtenant to the Greens’ adjacent land and thus ran with the dominant estate, including after subdivision.
- The court held the blanket motorcycle prohibition was overly broad and remanded for the trial court to craft reasonable restrictions consistent with the reciprocal rights of the dominant and servient estates.
- The case was remanded for entry of relief consistent with an appurtenant easement and for reconsideration of use restrictions under a reasonableness standard.

## Legal Principles

- When an easement instrument is ambiguous, courts may consider surrounding circumstances at execution and the parties’ conduct to determine intent.
- Washington law applies a strong presumption that an easement is appurtenant unless a contrary intent clearly appears.
- A grant of an easement for ingress, egress, and utilities to owners of adjacent land is evidence the easement was intended to benefit the adjacent land and is appurtenant.
- Appurtenant easements run with the dominant estate through successive transfers and generally continue to benefit subdivided parcels of the dominant estate.
- The servient owner may seek reasonable limits to prevent unreasonable burden, but restrictions may not effectively deprive the dominant estate of the easement’s intended use.

## Conclusion

The appellate court determined the access-and-utilities easement was appurtenant to the Greens’ retained land, reversed the trial court’s contrary characterization, and remanded for reasonable—rather than categorical—restrictions on uses such as motorcycle riding.


Green v. Lupo, 32 Wn. App. 318, 647 P.2d 51 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982)