## Facts

- Owners of four adjoining lots conveyed the front two-thirds of two lots to purchasers, reserving a ten-foot right-of-way “along the South side” for access to the rear property.
- Subsequent deeds in the chain of title continued to recite the south-side reservation, but a later deed to the current servient owners omitted the reservation, though the earlier recorded deeds remained of record.
- For years, the dominant owners accessed the rear property using a ten-foot driveway located along the north side of the conveyed front lots, without objection from successive front-lot owners.
- The house on the front lots was constructed so that it encroached roughly two feet into the deeded south-side right-of-way strip.
- After initially complaining about the manner of use, the servient owners later asserted the right-of-way was on the south by deed, threatened to block the north driveway, and sued to enjoin north-side use and to declare the south-side easement abandoned and extinguished.
- The trial court ruled the dominant owners held the deeded south-side easement but, as an equitable condition, permitted the servient owners to avoid the hardship of removing the encroaching house if they continued allowing use of the established north-side driveway.
- The servient owners appealed, asserting abandonment and estoppel and disputing any right to use the north-side driveway.

## Issues

1. Whether the dominant owners abandoned and thereby extinguished the deeded ten-foot right-of-way reserved along the south side of the servient lots.
2. Whether long-continued use of a different access route (north-side driveway) extinguished or replaced the deeded south-side easement.
3. Whether the dominant owners were equitably estopped from asserting the south-side easement because of the house encroachment and alleged acquiescence.
4. Whether equity could condition relief to reconcile the deeded easement with reliance and hardship created by the encroaching structure and established course of access.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed.
- The deed created a valid ten-foot right-of-way along the south side, and it was not extinguished.
- Abandonment was not proven because there were no acts clearly showing intent to relinquish the deeded easement, and the evidence supported a mutual mistake about the easement’s location.
- Habitual use of another route, even for a long time, did not extinguish the deeded easement absent intentional abandonment.
- Estoppel failed because the record did not show the dominant owners knowingly induced detrimental reliance inconsistent with their easement rights.
- The court approved the equitable decree conditioning the servient owners’ requested relief on maintaining access, either by making the south-side easement available or by continuing to permit use of the established north-side driveway.

## Legal Principles

- A deeded easement may be extinguished by abandonment only when nonuse is coupled with acts or circumstances clearly showing intent to abandon, or when adverse use by the servient owner is acquiesced in long enough to create a prescriptive right.
- Mere nonuse of a deeded easement, regardless of duration, does not by itself constitute abandonment.
- Habitual use of another equally convenient way does not extinguish a deeded right-of-way absent intentional abandonment of the original easement.
- The party asserting abandonment bears the burden to prove it by clear and unequivocal evidence.
- Equitable relief may be conditioned to require fair terms when a party seeks an injunction or other equitable remedy affecting established access and improvements.

## Conclusion

The court held the reserved south-side right-of-way remained enforceable because abandonment and estoppel were not proven; long-term use of a different driveway did not extinguish the deeded easement, and equity could condition relief to preserve access while avoiding disproportionate hardship from the servient owners’ encroaching structure.


Lindsey v. Clark, 193 Va. 522, 69 S.E.2d 342 (Va. 1952)