Windel v. Mat-Su Title Insurance Agency, Inc.

[PROPERTY LAW]

In Windel v. Mat-Su Title Insurance Agency, Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that easements on property owned by tenants by the entirety but missing a co-grantor’s signature can nonetheless be valid.[2] Windel purchased a parcel of land from the Davises, tenants by the entirety who jointly had recorded a fifty-foot-wide easement for a public road on the property.[3] Carnahan purchased land adjacent to Windel’s property and upgraded the road.[4] Windel sued Carnahan for trespass and argued that the easement was invalid.[5] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that despite Mrs. Davis’ absent signature on the easement’s recording, the easement was valid under the doctrine of ratification.[6] Mrs. Davis’ silence ratified the easement conveyance.[7] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that easements on property owned by tenants by the entirety but missing a co-grantor’s signature can nonetheless be valid.[8]

 



[1] 305 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 274.

[3] Id. at 267.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 268.

[6] Id. at 272.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 274.

Windel v. Mat-Su Title Insurance Agency, Inc.

[PROPERTY LAW]

In Windel v. Mat-Su Title Insurance Agency, Inc.,[1] the supreme court held that easements on property owned by tenants by the entirety but missing a co-grantor’s signature can nonetheless be valid.[2] Windel purchased a parcel of land from the Davises, tenants by the entirety who jointly had recorded a fifty-foot-wide easement for a public road on the property.[3] Carnahan purchased land adjacent to Windel’s property and upgraded the road.[4] Windel sued Carnahan for trespass and argued that the easement was invalid.[5] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that despite Mrs. Davis’ absent signature on the easement’s recording, the easement was valid under the doctrine of ratification.[6] Mrs. Davis’ silence ratified the easement conveyance.[7] Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that easements on property owned by tenants by the entirety but missing a co-grantor’s signature can nonetheless be valid.[8]

 



[1] 305 P.3d 264 (Alaska 2013).

[2] Id. at 274.

[3] Id. at 267.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at 268.

[6] Id. at 272.

[7] Id.

[8] Id. at 274.