McEvoy v. Palumbo

A neighbor lacks standing to enforce a conservation easement under the Connecticut conservation easement enabling statute.

The appellate court affirmed, holding that the neighbors lacked standing under both traditional common law of easements and the Ohio conservation easement enabling statute, as they were not parties to the easement.

The trial court upheld the conservation easement and granted the Government's motion to dismiss, citing Mississippi statutory and common law to the effect that the conveyance of an interest greater than the grantor owns only nullifies the excess portion of the conveyance.

The trial court dismissed all landowner claims regarding public access for lack of standing, lack of timely notice under the Oregon Tort Claims Act, and for exceeding the statute of limitations. The landowners appealed. The intermediate appellate court reversed.

The Court held that neither neighbors nor the general public has standing to enforce a conservation easement under the New Hampshire conservation easement enabling statute.

Tennessee had a statute more favorable to third-party standing than the typical state enabling statute because it provides that 'beneficiaries' of the easement have standing. As result of this case, the Tennessee legislature amended the conservation easement act to prohibit third-party standing.

A neighbor lacks standing to enforce a conservation easement under the Connecticut conservation easement enabling statute.

The small claims court dismissed the action for lack of standing, and the appellate court affirmed.

The Town Council wanted to terminate an easement it held on Town land without following the strict termination procedure set forth in the enabling statute. The Attorney General's Advisory Opinion held that the conservation easement must follow the termination procedures in the enabling statute.

This is a standing case where the court denied neighbor standing to enforce a conservation easement.