In Thayer v. Hollinger, Hollinger owned land next to lakeshore ...

[ETearle]

In Thayer v. Hollinger, Hollinger owned land next to lakeshore lots that he developed. He shared a common road with the lakeshore lot owners who used trails on his property that were accessed from the road. Hollinger claimed he could block use of the trails. The lot owners claimed an easement to use the trails. The courts held that:
 a. restrictive covenants did not establish easements for the lot owners
  b. restrictive covenants established the right of lot owners to use the trails
  c. easements that ran with the land attach to property that is commonly attached which includes the road and trails
  d. restrictive covenants have no true legal power in Montana
  e. none of the other choices are correct

Question 2

In Thayer v. Hollinger, Hollinger owned land next to lakeshore lots that he developed. He shared a common road with the lakeshore lot owners who used trails on his property that were accessed from the road. Hollinger claimed he could block use of the trails. The lot owners claimed an easement to use the trails. The courts held that:
 a. Hollinger granted the lot owners an easement as part of the sale of the land, which included use of the road and trails leading from the road
  b. Hollinger could not block access to the trails without permission of the lot owners because they had used the trails for so many years
  c. the lot owners had an easement by adverse possession that allowed use of the trails as they openly used the trails for more than seven years
  d. the lot owners could establish easements by adverse possession to use the trail if they showed open use of the trails for at least seven years
  e. none of the other choices

[pallen55]

Answer to Question 1

a

Answer to Question 2

e