Looney was the owner of a 300-acre tract of land in Pittman County. Over time, she developed the property into a residential subdivision known as Devonshire. Lincoln Boulevard, a four-lane public highway, ran along the northern boundary of Devonshire. When Devonshire was first plotted, Looney constructed a private road called Looney Lane along the western boundary of the subdivision. Looney Lane was used only for the benefit of the owners who purchased lots in the subdivision.

Dooley owned a 20-acre tract situated just below Lincoln Boulevard and immediately adjacent to the west side of Looney Lane. Dooley's property was divided into two 10-acre parcels: Parcel 1, the northern half, bordered Lincoln Boulevard; Parcel 2, the southern sector, abutted the Peekskill River. In 1997, Dooley conveyed Parcel 1 to Perez by warranty deed. No encumbrances were mentioned in the deed. Six months later, Dooley conveyed Parcel 2 by warranty deed to Eagleson. Both Perez and Eagleson promptly recorded their deeds with the Pittman County Recorder's Office.

Assume for the purposes of this question only that no part of Parcel 2 adjoins a public road. Consequently, Eagleson constructed an access road connecting his property to Looney Lane. After Eagleson used Looney Lane for approximately two months, Slotnick, a Devonshire lot owner, ordered Eagleson to discontinue using the private road.

In an appropriate action by Slotnick against Eagleson to enjoin the use of Looney Lane, Eagleson will:

A. Win, because there is an easement by necessity over Looney Lane.

B. Win, because there is an implied easement appurtenant over Looney Lane.

C. Lose, unless Looney Lane is the only access road by which Eagleson can gain ingress and egress to his property.

D. Lose, because he has no legal right to travel over Looney Lane.

Eagleson may have the right to use Looney Lane based on an easement by necessity or an implied easement appurtenant. An easement by necessity could exist due to the lack of access to a public road. An implied easement appurtenant could exist if the intention for Eagleson to use Looney Lane was present when the parcels were divided. The correct option is B.

Explanation:

In a legal contest between Slotnick and Eagleson over the use of Looney Lane, the outcome could vary based on the type of easement in place. In this case, Eagleson can win if the court finds that there is an easement by necessity or an implied easement appurtenant over Looney Lane. Both of these easements may permit Eagleson to use Looney Lane to access his parcel of land.

An easement by necessity exists when the property cannot be appropriately used without an easement. Given that Parcel 2, owned by Eagleson, doesn't adjoin a public road, it could be argued there's an easement by necessity. Therefore, answer (A) might hold true.

Secondly, an implied easement appurtenant could exist if the use of Looney Lane was intended when the parcels were divided, even if it's not explicitly mentioned in the deeds. However, this may be harder to prove, depending on the historical usage and purpose of Looney Lane. Thus, answer (B) could also be considered true, although it's somewhat less likely. The correct option is B.

Learn more about Easement here:

https://brainly.com/question/31544238

#SPJ11