Legal Question in Real Estate Law in Washington

Re: Right of Ways

Your questions cannot be answered without further research. I am including an excerpt from Veach v. Culp, 21 Wash. App. 454, 585 P.2d 818 (Wa.App. 10/09/1978) outlining a few of the questions that need to be researched.

==================================================

Whether the Zobrists conveyed an easement only (a right to use the land for the purpose of operating a railroad) or the fee in the land depends upon the intent of the parties to the deed. Scott v. Wallitner, 49 Wash. 2d 161, 299 P.2d 204 (1956).

[25] In attempting to arrive at the intention of the parties to similar conveyances, the courts have considered such factors as whether the consideration expressed was substantial or nominal; whether the deed conveyed a strip, piece, parcel or tract of land, and did not contain additional language relating to the use or purpose to which the land was to be put, or in other ways limiting the estate conveyed; whether the deed conveyed a strip of land and limited its use to a specific purpose; whether the deed conveyed a right of way over a tract or land, rather than a strip, piece or parcel thereof; whether the deed granted only the privilege of constructing, operating, or maintaining a railroad over the land; whether the deed contained a clause providing that if the railroad ceased to operate, the land conveyed would revert to the grantor; whether the conveyance did or did not contain a habendum clause, and many other considerations suggested by the language of the particular deed.

[26] Swan v. O'Leary, 37 Wash. 2d 533, 535-36, 225 P.2d 199 (1950).

[27] The Veaches rely on the following rule which was adopted in Morsbach :

[28] [W]hen the granting clause of a deed declares the purpose of the grant to be a right of way for a railroad the deed passes an easement only, and not a fee with a restricted use, even though the deed is in the usual form to convey a fee title.