Bar Exam Question: Easements

Question

Here's the question:

Frank owned two adjacent parcels, Blackacre and Whiteacre. Blackacre fronts on a poor unpaved public road, while Whiteacre fronts on Route 20, a paved major highway. Fifteen years ago, Frank conveyed to his son, Sam, Blackacre “together with a right-of-way 25 feet wide over the east side of Whiteacre to Route 20.” At that time, Blackacre was improved with a ten-unit motel. Ten years ago, Frank died. His will devised Whiteacre “to my son, Sam, for life, remainder to my daughter, Doris.” Five years ago, Sam executed an instrument in the proper form of a deed, purporting to convey Blackacre and Whiteacre to Joe in fee simple. Joe then enlarged the motel to 12 units. Six months ago, Sam died and Doris took possession of Whiteacre. She brought an appropriate action to enjoin Joe from using the right-of-way. In this action, who should prevail? (A) Doris, because merger extinguished the easement. (B) Doris, because Joe has overburdened the easement. (C) Joe, because he has an easement by necessity. (D) Joe, because he has the easement granted by Frank to Sam

My assumption was that the answer would be 'A' because the merger extinguishes the easement when Frank devised Whiteacre to Sam. But the answer is apparently 'D'. Is there some condition that I'm missing here?

Thank you!

Answer 1

There wasn't a merger of estates because Sam had a fee interest in Blackacre, but only a life estate in Whiteacre, therefore the right-of-way which would otherwise have been extinguished was not extinguished because the estates were not identical. In other words, there is not unity of ownership.

The easement hasn't been overburdened because the express terms of the easement set the scope and don't limit the amount of traffic in this regard, and because further development is assumed.

There is no easement by necessity because Blackacre has access to a public road even though it is a crappy one.

Answer 2

This is what you're missing:

Frank conveyed to his son, Sam, Blackacre “together with a right-of-way 25 feet wide over the east side of Whiteacre to Route 20.”

From this point on the easement is part of the Blackacre property.