11. Motel 6, Inc. v. Pfile (Real property)

[김진만]

11. Motel 6, Inc. v. Pfile, US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1983 --- 718 F.2d 80, rehearing denied.

1. Fact

In 1971, appellant, Motel 6 built and operated a motel in Belle Vernon, under a long lease agreement with Pfiles. In this agreement, Pfiles agree to provide the motel with sewage service. Later, Motel 6 purchased the motel from the Pfiles and rebuilt it at a cost over two million dollars. In the purchase agreement, there was no mention of sewage service. When the Pfiles refused to service the motel, the purchaser, Motel6 sought a permanent injunction in the district court requiring the Pfiles to furnish sewage treatment.

2. Issue

Whether motel 6 establishes the right of easement by implication to defendant’s the sewage service facilities.

3. Rule

1> Spaeder v. Tabak

To establish an easement by implication on the severance of the unity of ownership in an estate there must be (1) a separation of the title, (2) such continuous and obvious use before the separation as to show an intention to make the alleged easement permanent, (3) the easement must be necessary to the beneficial enjoyment of the land granted or retained; and (4) the servitude should be continuous and self-acting.

2> Burns Manufacturing Co. v. Boehm

continuous use of a permanent right of way gives rise to the implication that the parties intended that such use would continue, notwithstanding the absence of necessity for the use

[W]here an owner of land subjects part of it to an open, visible, permanent and continuous servitude or easement in favor of another part and then aliens either, the purchaser takes subject to the burden or the benefit as the case may be, and this irrespective of whether or not the easement constituted a necessary right of way.

3> Nauman v. Treen Box Co., 280 Pa. 97, 101, 124 A. 349, 350 (1924)

under the common law a "drain, however infrequently used, was always held to be "[a continuous easement]."

4> Heffley v. Lohr, 149 Pa.Super. 586, 591, 27 A.2d 275, 278 (1942)

What determines the existence of an easement is the intention as implied and manifested by the acts of the parties

4. Application

Citing the uncontested in the record, US Court of Appeals found that the defendant subjected part of their property to open, visible, continuous, and permanent easement in favor of plaintiff and then sold to the latter and that all of the element s of the Burns test is met. Therefore, Motel 6 is entitled to the benefit of a sewage plant easement.

In the Pfiles’ another argument that there is absence of a provision for sewer treatment services in the agreement of sale, which shows the intention of the parties about the service, the court found that there is intent to the parties, despite the absence of express language in the agreement because the Burn’s test was satisfied.

5. Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment of the district court and remanded the case for determination of the proper compensation.

6. Classnote/ Feedback

An implied reservation is when someone who is selling property retains a right or interest in that property, such as an easement, even though they are giving the property to someone else. This can happen if the seller could have specifically reserved the right but didn't. It's like keeping a secret right that only the seller knows about. 

Diversity suit: 주관할 사건인데 피고와 원고가 법 적인 주소지가 다를 경우 연방법원에서 재판하는 경우

Implied easement를 Recognition을 해야 그것을 근거로 permanent injunction을 할 수있기 때문.

Implied easements are not recorded or explicitly stated until a court decides a dispute, but reflect the practices and customs of use for a property.