## Facts

- In 1938, a grantor conveyed land to Hot Shoppes, Inc. and subjected part of the conveyed land to a 16-foot right-of-way for ingress and egress, creating an easement appurtenant benefiting the grantor’s retained land.
- Penn Bowling Recreation Center, Inc. later acquired a portion of the benefited (dominant) land through intervening conveyances and developed a bowling-and-restaurant facility.
- Penn Bowling also acquired adjoining property not part of the original dominant estate.
- In 1948, Hot Shoppes erected iron posts and concrete blocks within and alongside the right-of-way, allegedly interfering with Penn Bowling’s use.
- Penn Bowling sued to enjoin the obstruction and interference with the right-of-way.
- Hot Shoppes denied Penn Bowling’s right to use the easement and sought (i) an injunction barring Penn Bowling’s use and (ii) a declaratory judgment that the easement was forfeited and extinguished by abandonment.
- Hot Shoppes asserted Penn Bowling overburdened or misused the easement by using it to serve the non-dominant adjoining property, using it for vehicle parking, and constructing improvements allegedly inconsistent with ingress and egress.

## Issues

1. Whether alleged overburdening or misuse of an appurtenant right-of-way (including use for non-dominant property and parking) can, by itself, effect forfeiture, abandonment, or extinguishment of the easement.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where material facts were disputed concerning the scope, character, and reasonableness of Penn Bowling’s use and any interference with the servient estate.

## Decision

- The court of appeals vacated the district court’s summary judgment for Hot Shoppes and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that misuse or overburdening of an easement does not automatically extinguish the easement.
- The record presented factual disputes about the extent and nature of Penn Bowling’s use and whether any improper use could be separated from proper use, making summary judgment inappropriate.
- The court indicated that if improper use were proven, equitable relief would typically be tailored to restrain the improper use rather than terminate the easement.

## Legal Principles

- Misuse of an easement, without more, does not itself extinguish the easement.
- Use of an appurtenant easement to benefit non-dominant property may be restrained, but whether such use occurred and whether it is unreasonable are factual questions.
- When authorized and unauthorized uses are intermingled, courts should determine the facts and shape relief to prevent excess burdens instead of declaring forfeiture absent a sufficient basis.
- Summary judgment is improper where material disputes exist about the character, scope, and effects of the claimed misuse and the resulting interference with the servient owner’s rights.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit set aside a judgment that declared an appurtenant right-of-way abandoned and enjoined its use, ruling that alleged overuse presented material fact disputes and that improper use, if shown, generally warrants limited injunctive relief rather than automatic termination of the easement.


Penn Bowling Recreation Ctr., Inc. v. Hot Shoppes, Inc., 179 F.2d 64 (D.C. Cir. 1949)