Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3. Easement validity. Plaintiffs contend that the easement was not valid. Although the Court may have "conclusive evidence that there is an easement contained in the certificate, it does not preclude judicial inquiry into the validity of the easement."Nolan, at 922. When an easement is created in a deed for warranty property, "[t]he rule is that a grantee of land takes title subject to duly recorded easements which have been granted by the predecessors in title." Werner v. Sample, 259 Minn. 273, 275; 107 N.W.2d 43, 44 (Minn. 1961). Warranty property is abstract, unregistered property. The rule requiring easements to be duly recorded is to ensure notice of the document creating the easement, and guarantee a person who purchases land has "knowledge" or "actual, constructive or implied notice that it is burdened with an easement" and therefore"takes the estate subject to the easement."Nolan, at 922, citing Levine v. Twin City Red Barn No. 2. Inc., 269 Minn. 260, 264, 207 N.W.2d 739, 742 (Minn. 1973). Plaintiffs' land is warranty property. The 1948 Deed was recorded by the Hennepin County Clerk and Recorder, on May 25, 1948, as Document No. 2513998. The 1948 Deed was therefore duly recorded. Because the Deed creating the easement was duly recorded, the 1948 Deed satisfied the notice requirement, creating a legally valid easement across Lot 20. Plaintiffs contend that for the easement to be validly created on warranty property, "subject to" language could not create an easement,but only presupposed an existing easement. Plaintiffs rely on Werner, where the Minnesota Supreme Court held that a warranty deed which conveyed property "subject to easement for driveway and sewer" was insufficient to create a valid easement, stating, "Such language, of course, does not create an easement; it presupposes an existing easement." Werner, at 275. Plaintiffs' reliance on Werner is misplaced. 8