Waterfront properties are not infrequently encumbered by an easement to allow nearby properties access to the waterfront.
Two brothers owned several lots on Lake Whatcom. They sold the upland lots and kept the waterfront property, but granted an easement for access to the waterfront.
The brothers spent their own time and labor to maintain the common area for ten years, though under the terms of the easement these costs were supposed to be shared.
On one lot the new neighbors invited people to swim and use jet skis from the lakefront property dock and started building a parking lot on their lot. The brothers sued to stop the parking lot construction.
A dispute arose when the brothers stopped gratuitously maintaining the lakefront common area and demanded the upland lot owners contribute. They also wanted other upland owners to contribute towards the costs of the parking lot litigation.
The brothers sued two upland owners, settling out of court with one neighbor but losing to the other in court. The brothers lost on appeal. The neighbors who prevailed were awarded attorney fees.[1]
The case hinged largely on the courts’ interpretation of the easement language, particularly terms regarding remedies for breach.
Our firm did not participate in this case.
This easement dispute illustrates the importance of carefully crafted language, and perhaps even more so the importance of not setting on your rights.
[1] Hurlbut v. Crines, ___ Wn. App. ___ ( No. 79758-1-I September 28, 2020).