## Facts

- Music owned eight platted lots (Nos. 17–24) and executed a 1949 written agreement allowing Martin to construct and maintain a sewer line under and through those lots.
- In exchange, Martin agreed to place “an intake connection” in the sewer line “for use of” Music at a point Music would designate.
- The agreement did not state that the intake right was personal to Music, did not limit use to a single structure, and did not exclude successors.
- After the sewer line was built, Music sold six lots to Moore, and Moore sold three lots each to Wells and Allen.
- Wells and Allen began building single-family homes on their lots and sought to connect to the sewer through the single intake provided by the agreement.
- Martin filed a declaratory-judgment action asserting the intake privilege was a personal right (an easement in gross) limited to Music and not transferable to Wells and Allen.
- The circuit court ruled that Music, Wells, and Allen could connect, so long as all connections were made through the single intake specified by the contract.

## Issues

1. Whether the contract created a sewer connection right that was personal to Music (an easement in gross) or an easement appurtenant running with the land.
2. If the right ran with the land, whether the contract nonetheless limited use to a single physical intake connection point.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed.
- The court held the sewer connection right was an easement appurtenant benefitting the land, not a personal right limited to Music.
- Wells and Allen, as subsequent owners of portions of the benefited tract, were entitled to connect to the sewer.
- The court maintained the contractual restriction that connections must be made through the single intake connection provided for in the agreement.

## Legal Principles

- When an easement agreement appears designed to benefit a described tract and does not clearly limit the benefit to a particular person, the interest is generally construed as an easement appurtenant rather than an easement in gross.
- Courts will not infer personal-use limitations or successor exclusions absent clear contractual language.
- An easement may run with the land while the manner of its exercise remains limited by express terms of the instrument (here, a single intake connection point).
- Claims of increased burden do not establish a personal easement where the instrument and circumstances do not show an intent to confine the benefit to the grantor individually.

## Conclusion

The court concluded the right to connect to the sewer via the contractually required intake was appurtenant to the lots burdened by the sewer line easement and therefore passed to later purchasers, subject to the agreement’s limitation that all users connect through the single designated intake.


Martin v. Music, 254 S.W.2d 701 (Ky. Ct. App. 1953)