Legal Perspectives on Easement Extinguishment: A Closer Look at Gale v. Town of Wilton

This week we want to draw your attention to an interesting decision out of the 3^rd Department, where property owners unsuccessfully attempted utilize RPAPL Section 1951 (“Extinguishment of a non-substantial restrictions on the use of land”) in an action to quiet title and eliminate an Easement which burdened their property with an easement creating a walking and recreational trail. Unfortunately for the Plaintiffs, both the Supreme Court, Saratoga County, as well as the Appellate Division, Third Department, held in favor of the Defendant/Respondent, the Town of Wilton, deciding, in part, that no cause of action could be maintained under RPAPL Section 1951 in the underlying action. The relevant facts of, as well as a link to, the case are set forth below:

Plaintiffs, the purchasers of property subject to an easement of record for a walking and recreational trail, after learning of plans to construct a trail over the easement commenced an action under RPAPL Section 1951 (“Extinguishment of non-substantial restrictions on the use of land”) to quiet title and extinguish the easement. Under Section 1951,

“[n]o restriction on the use of land created at any time by…[a] negative easement…shall be enforced… or determined to be enforceable, if, at the time the enforceability…is called into question, it appears that the restriction is of no actual and substantial benefit to the persons seeking its enforcement or seeking a determination or determination of its enforceability, either because the purpose of the restriction has already been accomplished or, by reason of changed conditions or other cause, its purpose is not capable of accomplishment, or for any other reason.”

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the ruling of the Supreme Court, Saratoga County, denying the Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting the cross-motion of the Defendant, the holder of the beneficial interest under the easement, for summary judgment. According to the Appellate Division, RPAPL Section 1951 applies to a negative easement, an easement that “‘restrain[s] servient landowners from making otherwise lawful uses of their property’ [citation omitted]” and “the subject easement was an affirmative easement because it forced plaintiffs to permit defendant to construct and maintain a walking trail. Accordingly, RPAPL 1951 does not apply.”
The Appellate Division also noted that the Plaintiffs had not established that the Defendant by non-use of the easement intended to abandon it. Gale v. Town of Wilton, 2021 NY Slip Op 06735, decided December 2, 2021, is posted at:https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2021/2021_06735.htm

While the Plaintiffs were unsuccessful in this particular case, RPAPL Section 1951 may be a useful tool for some Attorneys representing clients seeking to extinguish certain types of Easements in situations where the specific facts support their cause of action.