Bar Exam Question: Easements
<p>Here's the question:</p>

<p>Frank owned two adjacent parcels, Blackacre
and Whiteacre. Blackacre fronts on a poor
unpaved public road, while Whiteacre fronts
on Route 20, a paved major highway. Fifteen
years ago, Frank conveyed to his son, Sam,
Blackacre “together with a right-of-way 25
feet wide over the east side of Whiteacre
to Route 20.” At that time, Blackacre was
improved with a ten-unit motel.
Ten years ago, Frank died. His will devised
Whiteacre “to my son, Sam, for life, remainder
to my daughter, Doris.” Five years ago, Sam
executed an instrument in the proper form
of a deed, purporting to convey Blackacre
and Whiteacre to Joe in fee simple. Joe then
enlarged the motel to 12 units. Six months
ago, Sam died and Doris took possession of
Whiteacre. She brought an appropriate action
to enjoin Joe from using the right-of-way.
In this action, who should prevail?
(A)
Doris, because merger extinguished the
easement.
(B)
Doris, because Joe has overburdened the
easement.
(C)
Joe, because he has an easement by
necessity.
(D)
Joe, because he has the easement granted
by Frank to Sam</p>

<p>My assumption was that the answer would be 'A' because the merger extinguishes the easement when Frank devised Whiteacre to Sam. But the answer is apparently 'D'. Is there some condition that I'm missing here? </p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

<p>There wasn't a merger of estates because Sam had a fee interest in Blackacre, but only a life estate in Whiteacre, therefore the right-of-way which would otherwise have been extinguished was not extinguished because the estates were not identical. In other words, there is not unity of ownership.</p>

<p>The easement hasn't been overburdened because the express terms of the easement set the scope and don't limit the amount of traffic in this regard, and because further development is assumed.</p>

<p>There is no easement by necessity because Blackacre has access to a public road even though it is a crappy one.</p>

<p>This is what you're missing:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Frank conveyed to his son, Sam, Blackacre “together with a right-of-way 25 feet wide over the east side of Whiteacre to Route 20.” </p>
</blockquote>

<p>From this point on the easement is part of the Blackacre property.</p>

easement