Plaintiff, a golf course country club sought to gain an easement to preserve a golf cart path. Its entry divided between the 13th and 14th hole and went through condo developments. There was no written easement for the path, but the golf club argues that there was an implied easement. Testimony at trial showed that as far as five years back both the golf course and condo used the path. Eventually the condo was sold to defendants. When the condo development was being drafted a principle for the defendant called the owner of the golf course, who reminded him of the cart path, to which the principle replied “no problem.” Subsequently a dispute arose over the path and defendant bulldozed the path.
“Whether Plaintiff made a prima facie showing at an evidentiary hearing sufficient to entitle it to preliminary injunction.”
Yes, an easement can be implied. Even when an easement is created by implication, the implied easement can carry from new owner to new owner. “The rationale supporting implied easements is the court’s conclusion that the parties must have intended to grant or reserve an easement as part of the conveyance of land based on the circumstances at the time of the conveyance.” The land use of the land was (1) visible (2) permanently intended for use; and (3) the easement was reasonable necessary for use and benefit of “the dominant tenement.” The easement was very necessary to the golf course because there would be no 18 hole course without the easement. Finally, (4) the subsequent grantor of the subservient tenement was bound by the easement when he took possession of the land because he had notice of the easement. His principle was made aware and the land was visible and readily used in plain view.