Easement

MBE fact patterns hand you a use of a neighbor’s land and force a choice: is it a valid easement, or a mere license (revocable, personal, no writing required)? The “tell” is permanence and the Statute of Frauds—an oral permission is a license unless estoppel (detrimental reliance on the owner’s promise) or part performance locks it in (many courts then call the result an easement by estoppel). Watch the implication-versus-necessity split: an easement by implication needs prior apparent, continuous use plus reasonable necessity before severance, while an easement by necessity demands strict necessity (true landlocking) and ends when an alternative access opens.

Don’t confuse an easement (an affirmative right to use) with a covenant, which restricts the servient owner’s own use and runs to successors only if it touches and concerns the land. The classic trap: students grant prescriptive easements on facts showing permissive use—prescription, like adverse possession, requires hostility, so permission defeats it. And every easement is an encumbrance, breaching the grantor’s covenant against encumbrances even if the buyer can see the worn path (a minority of courts excuse open, visible easements—the MBE follows the majority that notice is immaterial).