## Q10 key (Easement and Retreat)
1. The retreat exceeds the express easement: a staffed twelve-bed facility at roughly 70 trips per day is a change in kind and an unreasonable burden against a one-single-family-residence grant, and the county's zoning classification cannot enlarge the private easement. Missed: the client litigates a scope theory that loses.
2. Prescription fails: the use began permissive ("neighborly courtesy") and was never repudiated; gravel maintenance is consistent with permission. Missed: a dead theory consumes the case.
3. Necessity fails: the logging trail existed and was passable at severance, and $900,000 of expense is not strict necessity. Missed: same.
4. The unauthorized widening, paving, drainage work, and tree removal exceeded the easement holder's rights and create affirmative exposure (trespass, restoration). Missed: the client is surprised by the counterclaim.
5. The locked gate is unlawful self-help as against residential-scope access; Haven Ridge can obtain limited relief restoring that access, but not 70-trip commercial access. Missed: either party overreads the gate fight.
6. The nuisance claim is anticipatory and manageable through operational conditions; it is leverage for the farm, not a project-killer by itself. Missed: mispriced risk on both sides.
7. Injunction outcome: partial at best for Haven Ridge; a court will not compel the servient estate to host the expanded use. Missed: litigation expectations wrong.
8. Posture: negotiate a recorded access agreement (defined trip caps, hours, road specifications, maintenance and indemnity terms, payment) or redesign toward eastern access; litigation for full access is the losing path, and the settlement structure is the real deliverable. Missed: the project dies in a winnable negotiation.