## Facts

- A 1980 deed conveying land to Walton reserved to the grantor an “exclusive easement of right-of-way for purposes of ingress and egress to State Route 33” over a strip crossing Walton’s property.
- The grantor later conveyed the dominant tract and easement rights to Capital Land, Inc.
- Capital operated a recreational facility; substantial public traffic used the right-of-way for access.
- Capital alleged Walton interfered with access by barricading the easement, harassing patrons, and periodically flooding the right-of-way.
- Capital sued for injunctive relief and a declaration that the easement was “exclusive” such that Capital could exclude Walton from any use of the easement area.
- The deed contained no express language stating the servient owner was excluded from use of the easement strip.

## Issues

1. Whether a reservation of an “exclusive easement of right-of-way for purposes of ingress and egress” clearly grants the easement holder the right to exclude the servient owner from all use of the easement area.
2. If not, what uses the servient owner may make of the burdened land consistent with the dominant owner’s rights.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the trial court’s declaration that Capital could exclude Walton from the easement area and remanded for entry of a decree consistent with its interpretation.
- The court held the deed’s use of “exclusive” did not clearly and unambiguously show an intent to deprive Walton of all use of the strip.
- Capital held an easement for ingress and egress and could prevent unreasonable interference with that access.
- Walton retained the right to use the easement area in ways that do not unreasonably interfere with Capital’s ingress and egress.

## Legal Principles

- The servient owner may use land subject to an easement in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the rights granted to the dominant estate.
- An easement burdens the servient estate but does not divest the servient owner of all beneficial use absent clear and explicit deed language.
- In the easement context, “exclusive” commonly means the grantor has not retained the power to grant similar easements to third parties in the same area; it does not, without more, exclude the servient owner from all use.
- Courts avoid construing easement language to effectively convert an easement into an estate in land unless the instrument unmistakably requires that result.

## Conclusion

The court construed the reserved “exclusive” right-of-way as protecting the dominant estate’s access rights without extinguishing the servient owner’s ability to use the burdened strip, so long as that use does not unreasonably interfere with ingress and egress.


Walton v. Capital Land, Inc., 252 Va. 324, 477 S.E.2d 499 (Va. 1996)