Laserfiche WebLink
in 1971, are not helpful in detem1ining the original intentions of the parties in the Torrens <br />proceeding in 1954. <br />16. Petitioners (Van Eeckhouts) and defendant (Dunn) both take the position that the <br />driveway easement is an appurtenant easement, that Tract H is the benefited land and that <br />Tract G is the burdened land. The position is consistent with the manner in which the <br />easement was created (see Memorandum paragraphs 1 and 3, above). It is also consistent <br />with the general presumption of law. Thompson v. Germania Life Insurance Co., 97 <br />Minn. 89 at 93, 106 NW 102 (1906). (" ... a grant of an easement in gross is never <br />presumed when it can fairly be construed as appurtenant to some other estate.") <br />17. A dominant (benefited) tenement may be subdivided. (See, Restatement of <br />Property, Sec. 488 cmt. B, 1944.) Generally, if the dominant tenement is subdivided, the <br />grantee of each parcel is entitled to use of the right-of-way. Dawson v. St. Paul Fire & <br />Marine Ins. Co., 15 Minn. 136, Gil. 102 (1870). In the present case, several factors lead <br />to the conclusion that if Tract H is subdivided the owners of the separate parcels may use <br />Tract G for driveway purposes. The 40-foot width of the driveway easement is <br />substantially greater than the 10-foot or 12-foot widths typically described for easements <br />considered to be for "private driveway" purposes. It seems fairly obvious that a parcel as <br />large as Tract H ( over 20 acres) would someday be subdivided. Since Tract H has no <br />practical access to a public road except over Tract G, it also seems obvious that the <br />parties to the conveyance in 1954 expected that the owners of the subdivided parcels <br />would all make use of the driveway easement over Tract G. <br />18. Although Defendant (Dunn) in her Answer requested that the Petitioners use of <br />Tract G be limited to existing driveway, she did not present any evidence tending to <br />support that request and did not pursue it in her Post Trial Memorandum. Defendant <br />made no allegation and offered no evidence that the use of the easement by the owners of <br />a subdivided Tract H would overburden Tract G. <br />10