The dispute arose when David and Caryn Yost sought to remove fencing, grapevines, fence poles, and hay bales that Thibault Enterprises had placed within their 50-foot-wide easement in Dinwiddie County. The Yosts use the easement to access their 1.08-acre property via a 12-foot-wide gravel road, and while Thibault's agricultural objects were placed within the easement boundaries, they didn't block the road itself or prevent the Yosts from reaching their home.
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Stephen R. McCullough rejected the Yosts' argument that they were entitled to the entire 50-foot width free of any objects. 'Our cases make clear that the owner of a servient estate may still make reasonable use of land burdened by an easement of defined width,' McCullough wrote, citing the court's 2012 decision in Piney Meeting House v. Hart. The court established a two-part test requiring courts to examine the deed's language to determine the easement's purpose and evaluate whether the servient owner's actions 'unreasonably interfere with the easement.'
The court firmly rejected the lower courts' approach, stating unambiguously: 'We do not agree' with the proposition that 'every encroachment, no matter how minor, is material when the easement is of an express width.' McCullough noted that the Yosts had acknowledged their 'ingress and egress is by and large not hampered' and that they simply 'want the whole 50 feet,' despite having no practical need for the full width.
Both the Dinwiddie County Circuit Court and the Virginia Court of Appeals had ruled in favor of the Yosts, with the circuit court granting an injunction despite finding that 'the grapevines and hay bales do not interfere with [the Yosts'] current use of the easement.' The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished 2025 opinion, reasoning that Thibault had impermissibly 'narrowed the width of the easement' by placing objects within its boundaries.
The Supreme Court distinguished this case from previous decisions where it had ordered removal of easement encroachments. In cases like Pizzarelle v. Dempsey and Snead v. C&S Properties Holding Co., the encroachments had 'substantially interfered with the easement holder's right of ingress and egress,' including blocking emergency vehicle access or preventing two-way traffic. Here, McCullough wrote, 'the evidence unequivocally established that the fences, vines, haybales and other items Thibault placed on the side of the gravel road do not interfere with the Yosts' ingress and egress in any appreciable way.'
The court also analyzed Virginia Code ยง 55.1-305, which prohibits servient estate owners from placing objects that 'unreasonably interfere' with easement enjoyment. McCullough emphasized the statute's use of 'unreasonably,' writing that since 'the Yosts are able to travel to and from their house over the land owned by Thibault,' there was 'no basis to enjoin Thibault under this statute.' The decision reinforces 'the common law's ancient antipathy toward restrictions on the free use of private property,' the court noted.
The ruling establishes that Virginia courts must apply a reasonableness standard rather than a strict prohibition when evaluating easement encroachments, even when the easement has a defined width. The decision protects servient landowners' rights to use their property for agricultural and other purposes while preserving easement holders' actual access needs, potentially affecting how property disputes are resolved across Virginia.