Real Property- Court clarifies when items may be placed within easement

Where the Court of Appeals and the circuit court held that the mere inclusion of items within property used for ingress and egress violated the easement, they erred. The presence of such objects is subject to a reasonableness analysis based on the language of the deed and the purpose of the easement. Here, the evidence showed the items did not prevent ingress or egress.

Background

The Yosts rely on an easement for ingress and egress to reach their home over a gravel road. Their easement is for a specific width of 50 feet. Thibault Enterprises LLC owns the land over which the Yosts’ easement is situated. Thibault has placed some fencing, vines and occasionally other objects, such as hay bales, within the width of the easement.

The Yosts filed a complaint alleging that the presence of these things within their easement constitutes a nuisance. The circuit court granted the injunction, reasoning that although “the grapevines and hay bales do not interfere with [the Yosts’] current use of the easement,” nevertheless “it [was] improper for Thibault to place objects in the easement.”

The Court of Appeals affirmed by unpublished opinion. It reasoned that the hay bales and vines indisputably were placed within the 50-foot easement, and, therefore, Thibault impermissibly “narrowed the width of the easement.”

Analysis

The question is whether the holder of an easement of a specific width is entitled to forbid the placement of any objects within the width of the easement, or whether the presence of such objects is subject to a reasonableness analysis based on the language of the deed and the underlying purpose of the easement. The rule of reasonableness applies.

This court’s most recent case on the subject, Piney Meeting House v. Hart, 284 Va. 187 (2012), involved a 30-foot “easement and right-of-way for ingress, egress, and related utilities.” The holders of the easement contended that the placement of an underground propane tank interfered with their easement. They argued that “every encroachment, no matter how minor, is material when the easement is of an express width.”

This court unambiguously answered that “[w]e do not agree.” It observed that “[o]ur cases make clear that the owner of a servient estate may still make reasonable use of land burdened by an easement of defined width.” That holding is consistent with a line of cases going back nearly 100 years.

Furthermore, the common law has long supported the proposition that landowners can use their land as they deem fit, provided they do not interfere with the rights of others. The evidence here established that the items Thibault placed along the gravel road did not interfere with the Yosts’ ingress and egress.

Code § 55.1-305

Code § 55.1-305 prohibits “the owner of the servient estate” from “engag[ing] in an activity or caus[ing] to be present any objects either upon the burdened land or immediately adjacent to such land that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of the easement by the owner of the dominant estate.” The evidence here unequivocally established that the Yosts are able to travel to and from their house over the land owned by Thibault. Accordingly, there is no basis to enjoin Thibault under this statute.

Conclusion

Consistent with this court’s cases and Code § 55.1-305, the court holds that the owner of a servient estate is not automatically required to remove all objects intruding into an easement of a defined width. Instead, courts reviewing claims of an impermissible encroachment upon an easement, whether of defined width or otherwise, should (1) examine the language of the deed to determine the purpose of the easement and the intent of the parties and (2) evaluate whether the actions of the owner of the servient estate unreasonably interfere with the easement.

In this case, the evidence unequivocally established that the fences, vines, haybales and other items Thibault placed on the side of the gravel road do not interfere with the Yosts’ ingress and egress in any appreciable way. Therefore, Thibault was not required to remove these items from within the boundaries of the easement. The Court of Appeals and the circuit court erred in holding otherwise.

Reversed and final judgment.

Thibault Enterprises, LLC v. Yost, Record No. 250128, April 9, 2026 (McCullough). From the Court of Appeals of Virginia. VLW 026-6-016. 9 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-6-016
Virginia Lawyers Weekly