Hey, That's My Easement Too! Or is it?

[E_Page]

1359/538 explicitly grants road easements over all 3 roads to A. I agree with your take on the others. The deeds do not grant easements to D over Rustic, nor to B or C over Ironwood.

The maintenance agreement is a separate issue. If the parties to the agreement want to agree to maintain roads over which they have no right of use, there is nothing preventing them from doing so. But when the agreement was created, by whom, and by whom executed may have an effect. Was it also recorded on 07/1/1971?

Since these were all executed on the same day (6/15/1971), and all recorded the same day (7/1/1971), with only 1 minute having elapsed from the recording time of the 1st of four deeds to the recording time of the last, a reasonable and strong argument could be made that they, together, represent an intent of simultaneous conveyance, and so rights over all of the road easements are shared equally among the several parcels.

This was two years prior to Parcel Maps being added to the SMA, and was otherwise exempt from the SMA, so these deeds, along with a RS showing the division was how such divisions were commonly accomplished.

That reasoning, together with the RMA, if executed and recorded about the same time come together for a fairly good argument that all roads in this scenario are shared in common among all parcels.

But I'm sure that someone will present a reasonable argument to the contrary.

[E_Page]

They refer to all three roads collectively as a single "community road". That could make a pretty strong argument that the original grantees each understood that all three, collectively, constituted a community roadway network that the each had equal rights and responsibility for.

The original grantor seemed to be out of the picture, retaining no interests (unless still holding land N of D). That leaves the original grantees interpreting what they were granted. They each received their parcels and easements effectively at the same time, and shortly thereafter drafted a document implying a recognition of equal footing over the "community road".

A literal interpretation of the deeds, I think, would limit the rights over the easements as we first identified. They are clear and unambiguous without having to resort to parol evidence for interpretation. The RMA would be such evidence. So I can see strong arguments either way.

I would like to find some case law on point of such pseudo-simultaneous conveyances, and how that affects boundary and easement interpretation. I'm not, at this time, aware of any.

If it were my call to make, I would tend to lean toward treating the parcels and roadways as if they were shown on a PM. But without some case law to fall back on, I'd feel a bit uneasy about it, either way.