By James L. Windsor, John J. Chappell, III, Real Estate Claims & Title Insurance Solutions

October 31 – Last Tuesday, the Court of Appeals of Virginia issued an unpublished opinion in Dorothy Lee Blevins, et al. v. Robert A. Larrabee, et al., concerning a dispute in relation to the width of an easement. In this appeal, the Blevins appealed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Washington County, Virginia. The Court affirmed the judgment and found no reversable error in the trial court’s judgement that the Larrabee’s easement across the Blevins’ property was 20 feet wide.

Relevant Facts

The Larrabees and Blevins’ own adjacent parcels of land in Washington County. The Larrabee’s parcel was landlocked but for an easement right to cross the northernmost strip of the Blevins’ property to reach Discovery Road (Va Secondary Route 862). All parties to this matter agreed that the Larrabees enjoyed an easement to access Discovery Road, but they did not agree on the proper width of the easement. Dating back to 1975, both parcels were once under the same ownership. Thereafter, the respective parcels were created through a series of conveyances. In the initial conveyance, there was granted and reserved a 20-foot-wide strip of land to use for road purposes. The Larrabees purchased their property in 2008 and, as a part of the purchase, the Larrabees were to receive “access to Discovery Road along the driveway.” The sale was also “made subject to … easements, if any, contained in the instruments constituting the chain of title to the property conveyed” thus including the original reservation of the easement even though it did not describe the width or shape of the existing easement. The Larrabees and Blevins’ began having disputes regarding the easement in 2013 and suit was filed in 2018. Over time, the Blevins had built fences along the easement, thereby narrowing it, at times, locked a gate to the entrance of Discovery Road, and during the pendency of the case, added infrared camera and stone walls on either side of the easement, narrowing the usable area at its narrowest point to 8.5 feet.

During the trial, testimony was heard from three of the grantors to the 2008 deed conveying title to the Larrabees. Their testimony indicated that they too thought the Larrabees would have access to the full 20 feet of the easement, just as everyone else did who had lived on the respective parcels. The sole witness for the Blevins acknowledged common references to the 20-foot easement but refused to concede the Larrabees enjoyed anything more than the narrowed driveway.

Trial Court Decision

By opinion letter, the trial court found, among other things, as follows:

1. The Larrabees were entitled to a 20-foot-wide easement.
2.  Accepted the concession by the Blevins that the Larrabees enjoyed an easement to access Discovery Road.
3. The 2008 deed to the Larrabees was ambiguous about the width of the easement but relied on the landowners’ long history of maintaining a 20-foot driveway across the parcels.
4. Concluded the driveway mentioned in the 2008 deed was necessarily the 20-foot-wide historical access road.
5. Issued an injunction barring the Blevins from obstructing the easement.
   and
6. Did not address the merger and extinguishment argument of the Blevins.

Court of Appeals Decision

I.  Reasoning

On appeal, the Blevins argued that the trial court erred in concluding that the easement was 20 feet wide. They asserted that the easement was only as wide as was reasonably necessary for the Larrabees to access Discovery Road and pressed their merger and extinguishment theory. In its analysis, the Court relied on several points: (a) the historical deeds and plats which, in this case, generally showed the driveway to Discovery Road to be 20 feet wide; (b) all of the instruments in the chain of title that mentioned the width of the driveway and said it was 20 feet wide; and (c) other instruments said the conveyance was “subject to” all existing easements and rights of way of record. Based on the foregoing, the Court reasoned that “given the consistent course of conduct by the various grantors and grantees in the chain of title, a reasonable purchaser in the Larrabee’s position would have understood from the chain of title records that the easement was 20 feet wide. These conclusions were also buttressed by the testimony provided at trial and the only contrary view was from the Blevins – the Court indicating “[a]s the factfinder, the trial court was entitled to reject [the] testimony as inconsistent with the greater weight of the evidence.”

II.  Conclusion/Findings

1. No reversable error in the trial court’s failure to address the Blevins’ merger and extinguishment argument as the properties have not been under common ownership since 1975.
2. No reversable error in the trial court’s judgment that the Larrabees have an easement that was 20 feet wide.

If you have any questions regarding this new opinion concerning easements or questions regarding Virginia real property law in general, please contact Jim Windsor at (757) 873.6308 or jim.windsor@kaufcan.com, or John Chappell at (757) 491.4022 or john.chappell@kaufcan.com.

The contents of this publication are intended for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion on specific facts and circumstances. Copyright 2025.