Easements Cannot be Destroyed by Frustration of Purpose Unless Provided in the Easement
The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the setting aside of an easement in Sluyter v. Hale Fireworks Partnership, No. 06-1442 (9/13/07).
The Sluyters and Hale Fireworks Partnership ("HFP") own adjacent tracts of land. In 1991, the previous owners granted reciprocal easements that run with the land. The facts as stated in the case are unclear, but the Arkansas Highway Department widened the nearby highway. This somehow interfered with HFP's use of its easement but did not interfere with the Sluyters' use of their easement.
HFP filed suit to cancel the easement. The trial court applied the contract theory of frustration of purpose, finding that the essential purpose of the easement was frustrated. The supreme court disagreed because the language of the easement never contemplates termination of the easement. The parties intended the easements to be binding, not to be destroyed when one party was inconvenienced or even lost the use of its easement altogether.
