Student
Name. Deograsius Ssesimba
Course Title. Real estate Law -B Law 340
Professor. Stave P, Katkov
Extra credit question. The curious case of Samantha Stuart
Question 1. Objective Analysis
First off, will tackle the Legal issues governing the dispute between Stuart and Folyle. a) What is the authority and type of the easement? The language of the condominium declaration is really ambiguous. It is not clear what type of the easement this is. It looks like an easement by estoppel, affirmative easement or easement in gross. First of all we will start by defining an easement. An easement is the right to use another’s land but not possess it to the exclusion of the world. It is Nonposessory but can run on in perpetuity/ without end. * Suggestion points; If we interpret it as an easement by estoppell meaning that Stuart merely obtained a license that he detrimentally relied on hence making it an easement by estoppels, Stuart might have a case. * Tenant landlord relationship/ who is responsible for repairs b) What is the authority of the condominium declaration * As regards to condominium declarations that are ambiguous, sometimes courts have interpreted them to mean easement appurtenant meaning that the easement must be one that benefits the owner of another parcel rather than conferring a benefit. In other wards an easement appurtenant is one that attaches to or benefits a particular tract of land. The major purpose off an easement of appurtenant is to provide benefit to a landowner. If we are looking at the Stuart as the dominant estate and foyle as the serveint estate , the court still has to assess the intention behind the declaration as to whether this easement ran with the land or not . * Facts ; we need to focus to on the intent behind the condominium declaration given that courts tend to treat declarations for common interest community with a certain degree of deference.
In other words, the recorded
Course Title. Real estate Law -B Law 340
Professor. Stave P, Katkov
Extra credit question. The curious case of Samantha Stuart
Question 1. Objective Analysis
First off, will tackle the Legal issues governing the dispute between Stuart and Folyle. a) What is the authority and type of the easement? The language of the condominium declaration is really ambiguous. It is not clear what type of the easement this is. It looks like an easement by estoppel, affirmative easement or easement in gross. First of all we will start by defining an easement. An easement is the right to use another’s land but not possess it to the exclusion of the world. It is Nonposessory but can run on in perpetuity/ without end. * Suggestion points; If we interpret it as an easement by estoppell meaning that Stuart merely obtained a license that he detrimentally relied on hence making it an easement by estoppels, Stuart might have a case. * Tenant landlord relationship/ who is responsible for repairs b) What is the authority of the condominium declaration * As regards to condominium declarations that are ambiguous, sometimes courts have interpreted them to mean easement appurtenant meaning that the easement must be one that benefits the owner of another parcel rather than conferring a benefit. In other wards an easement appurtenant is one that attaches to or benefits a particular tract of land. The major purpose off an easement of appurtenant is to provide benefit to a landowner. If we are looking at the Stuart as the dominant estate and foyle as the serveint estate , the court still has to assess the intention behind the declaration as to whether this easement ran with the land or not . * Facts ; we need to focus to on the intent behind the condominium declaration given that courts tend to treat declarations for common interest community with a certain degree of deference.
In other words, the recorded