## Facts

- Defendants owned a corner parcel in Minneapolis with a duplex and a rear dwelling, both served by a sewer drain connecting to a public sewer in Humboldt Avenue.
- Defendants later acquired an adjacent lot (later plaintiffs’ lot) on Twelfth Avenue; Twelfth Avenue had no public sewer.
- Defendants mortgaged the Twelfth Avenue lot in 1921; the mortgage and later conveyances did not expressly mention any sewer easement.
- In 1922, while still owning all relevant parcels, defendants installed plumbing in the Twelfth Avenue house and connected its sewer line underground across the properties into the duplex’s sewer line leading to the public sewer, creating a single drain serving three houses.
- The common sewer line periodically clogged and backed up sewage, creating unsanitary conditions likely to recur.
- Defendants defaulted; the mortgage was foreclosed in 1936 and the mortgagee took title to the Twelfth Avenue lot, later selling it to plaintiffs in 1938 while the sewer connection was in place and in use.
- After a 1941 clog and shared repair costs, defendants notified plaintiffs they intended to sever plaintiffs’ sewer connection.
- Plaintiffs sued in equity to enjoin disconnection of the sewer and to require removal of a fence built by defendants in 1915 that encroached onto plaintiffs’ land by 1 foot 5 inches.
- The trial court enjoined defendants from interfering with plaintiffs’ sewer use and ordered removal of the encroaching fence; defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, upon foreclosure severing title to the Twelfth Avenue lot, an easement by implication arose allowing plaintiffs to continue using the sewer line running across defendants’ retained land to the public sewer, although the connection was installed after the mortgage and the instruments were silent.
2. Whether defendants acquired title to the strip enclosed by an encroaching fence by adverse possession or by boundary established through practical location.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.
- Plaintiffs held an implied easement appurtenant to their lot for use of the sewer line across defendants’ land, and defendants were properly enjoined from disconnecting it.
- Defendants did not prove adverse possession or boundary by practical location as to the encroached strip; removal of the fence was properly ordered.

## Legal Principles

- An easement by implication may arise when, under unity of ownership, one part of land is used for the benefit of another in an obvious, permanent, and reasonably necessary manner, and title is later severed.
- In Minnesota, a mortgage is a lien and does not itself sever title; severance occurs upon foreclosure.
- A use created under unity of ownership (a quasi-easement) can ripen into an implied easement upon foreclosure severance if the use is apparent and reasonably necessary at the time of severance.
- Silence in a mortgage or deed does not bar an implied easement when the circumstances at severance support a presumed intent that the use pass as appurtenant.
- A fence encroachment alone does not establish adverse possession without proof of the required hostile, continuous, exclusive, and open possession for the statutory period.
- Boundary by practical location requires proof of agreement or sufficient mutual acquiescence; absence of such proof defeats the claim.

## Conclusion

The court held that foreclosure, not the mortgage execution, severed title and converted the preexisting sewer use established under common ownership into an implied easement benefiting the foreclosed parcel; it also rejected defendants’ attempt to keep an encroaching strip based on adverse possession or practical boundary location.


Romanchuk v. Plotkin, 9 N.W.2d 421 (Minn. 1943)