Supreme Court clarifies when objects can be placed in easement

In a reversal, the Supreme Court of Virginia determined that a rule of reasonableness applies when determining whether the holder of an easement can bar the placement of objects within the width of that easement.

The April 9 decision in Thibault Enterprises LLC v. Yost (VLW 026-6-016) was written
by Supreme Court of Virginia Justice Stephen R. McCullough.

“[T]he 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,”
McCullough wrote.

This case centered around land in Dinwiddie County where the appellees, David and Caryn Yost, own an easement that grants them “the right of ingress and egress over an outlet road” that crosses over land owned by Thibault Enterprises.

The Yosts filed a complaint that fences, fence poles and vegetation placed within the 50-foot easement constitute a nuisance.

McCullough wrote that under relevant statute, the owner of an easement “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 examine the language of the deed to determine the purpose of the easement and the intent of the parties, and evaluate whether the actions of the owner of the servient estate unreasonably interfere with the easement,”
McCullough wrote.

Richmond attorney Philip Strother of Strother Law Offices represented Thibault.

“Easement disputes are often fact-specific, and the decision appropriately recognizes that property rights must be assessed in context rather than through inflexible bright-line rules,” Strother said.

He said the decision “clarifies a century of jurisprudence in the area of easement law.

“The court’s reasoning confirms that the existence of a recorded easement of stated width does not, by itself, eliminate all lawful use by the servient owner within that corridor,” Strother said. “Rather, the controlling question is whether the challenged condition materially and unreasonably interferers with the easement rights actually granted.”

Strother said the opinion also strikes a balance between respecting access rights and the rights of landowners to use their property lawfully.

“At the same time, the opinion leaves room for relief where changing conditions demonstrate a genuine interference with easement use.”

Counsel for the Yosts did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Easement

The Yosts own slightly more than one acre of land in Dinwiddie County, where they live in a single-family home. To access that land, they own a 50-foot-wide easement with a gravel road running from the corner of their property to State Route 601.

The easement crosses over land owned by Thibault, which uses the land for agricultural purposes. In its use of the land, Thibault has placed “fences with grapevines, fences, fence poles, and hay bales” within the boundaries of the easement. The items do not enter the gravel road itself but are within the 50-foot width.

The Yosts filed a complaint, alleging the presence of the items within the easement constituted a nuisance. They sought an injunction against Thibault, barring the property owner from placing anything in the 50-foot easement, with counsel arguing before the circuit court that “the Yosts ‘want the whole 50 feet.’”

Although the Yosts acknowledged that their ingress and egress was “by and large not hampered,” they sought a ruling that Thibault was not permitted to place objects or plants within the easement.

Thibault argued that if the Yosts could still use the road, they cannot force removal of the objects in the easement.

The circuit court granted the Yosts’ injunction, prohibiting Thibault from placing objects in the easement. The court’s opinion stated that although “the grapevines and hay bales do not interfere with [the Yosts’] current use of the easement … it [was] improper for Thibault to place objects in the easement.”

Thibault appealed to the Court of
Appeals of Virginia, which affirmed the circuit court ruling in a 2025 unpublished opinion. The appellate court reasoned that hay bales and vines placed in the easement constituted an impermissible narrowing of the width of the easement.

Thibault subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Reversal

McCullough noted that the issues at hand were dueling interpretations of the rights of an easement holder when an easement is a specified width.

The Yosts argued that their easement is 50 feet, thus any obstacle within that 50 feet constitutes an interference with their rights.

Thibault countered that the easement’s purpose is for ingress and egress along the gravel road, and that as long as the Yosts can maintain use of the road without difficulty, then any restrictions on Thibault’s land use right would be “inconsistent with its right to use its land for whatever purpose it deems fit.”

McCullough cited the court’s most recent decision on the subject, the 2012 Piney
Meeting House v. Hart. In Piney Meeting House, at issue was a 30-foot easement similar to the present case, where an underground propane tank was alleged to interfere with the easement.

“We unambiguously answered that ‘we do not agree,’ McCullough wrote. “We 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.”

That “line of cases” cited by McCullough dates to 1933’s Willing v. Booker, where the high court determined that “the owner of the soil may make any use of his land which does not interfere with the reasonable use of the [right of] way.”

McCullough’s opinion also referenced cases like Snead v. C&S Props. Holding Co., where the Supreme Court of Virginia held there was an impermissible encroachment on an easement. In Snead, the central issue revolved around a fence installed that the court determined prevented the holders of the easement from using parts of the easement.

“We acknowledge that some statements in our prior decisions could lead to the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeals and the circuit court in this case,” McCullough wrote. “Those statements, however, cannot be read in isolation from the facts of the cases and from broader principles of property law.”

In this case, McCullough noted that the evidence “established that the items Thibault placed along the gravel road did not interfere with the Yosts’ ingress and egress.”

Citing Va. Code § 55.1-305, the justice also noted that the court must look to the specific terms of the easement. In the present case, the terms specify it is for a “right of ingress and egress over an outlet road,” despite the 50-foot specification.

“The evidence here unequivocally established that the Yosts are able to travel to and from their house over the land owned by Thibault,” McCullough wrote. “Accordingly, there is no basis to enjoin Thibault under this statute.”

Looking at court precedent and relevant statute, McCullough thus concluded that “the owner of a servient estate is not automatically required to remove all objects intruding into an easement of a defined width.”

Additionally, the justice concluded that the evidence in this case established that the items placed on the side of the gravel road do not interfere with use of the road itself, thus not violating the stated purpose of the easement.

“Therefore, Thibault was not required to remove these items from within the boundaries of the easement,” McCullough wrote. “The Court of Appeals and the circuit court erred in holding otherwise.”

However, McCullough noted in a footnote that “a change in circumstances may require a different answer,” like if traffic increases along the road or if erosion makes the road impassible, requiring a widening of the road to the full easement width.

Case name: Thibault Enterprises LLC v. Yost

THE ISSUE     Does an easement with a recorded stated width eliminate all use of the land in the easement by the property owner?

Answer       No (Supreme Court of Virginia)

Attorneys Philip C. Strother, Strother Law Offices, Richmond (appellant) Bruce E. Arkema, Durrette, Arkema, Gerson & Gill, Richmond (appellees)

• Thibault Enterprises LLC v. Yost
• Piney Meeting House v. Hart
• Willing v. Booker