Question

Thirty years ago, the original owner of Greenacre, a lot contiguous to Blueacre, in fee simple, executed and delivered to his neighbor an instrument in writing which was denominated "Deed of Conveyance." In pertinent part it read, "[The owner] does grant to [the neighbor] and her heirs and assigns a right-of-way for egress and ingress to Blueacre." If the quoted provision was sufficient to create an interest in land, the instrument met all other requirements for a valid grant. The neighbor held record title in fee simple to Blueacre, which adjoined Greenacre. Twelve years ago the owner's son succeeded to the original owner's title in fee simple in Greenacre and seven years ago the neighbor's daughter succeeded to the neighbor's title in fee simple to Blueacre by a deed which made no mention of a right-of-way or driveway. At the time the neighbor's daughter took title, there existed a driveway across Greenacre which showed evidence that it had been used regularly to travel between the main road and Blueacre. Blueacre did have frontage on a side road, but this means of access was seldom used because it was not as convenient to the dwelling situated on Blueacre as was the main road. The driveway originally was established by the neighbor. The neighbor's daughter has regularly used the driveway since acquiring title. The period of time required to acquire rights by prescription in the jurisdiction is ten years. Six months ago the son notified the neighbor's daughter that the son planned to develop a portion of Greenacre as a residential subdivision and that the daughter should cease any use of the driveway. After some negotiations, the son offered to permit the daughter to construct another driveway to connect with the streets of the proposed subdivision. The daughter declined this offer on the ground that travel from Blueacre to the main road would be more circuitous. The neighbor's daughter brought an appropriate action against the son to obtain a definitive adjudication of the respective rights of the daughter and the son. In such lawsuit the son relied upon the defense that the location of the easement created by the grant from the original owner to the neighbor was governed by reasonableness and that the son's proposed solution was reasonable.
The son's defense should:____________

Answer 1

Answer: Son's argument should fail

Explanation:

The son's defense will fail because the location of the easement is not governed by reasonableness as it had been established at its current location by the neighbor.

It can not now be changed arbitrarily by the son because the original owner had allowed it to be built. The easement's location is therefore established by actions between the original owner and the neighbor and so it is a binding location.