If Jackson's property is dominant and Lee's property is servient in an easement situation, which is true?

In an easement situation, the relationship between dominant and servient properties is significant. Jackson's property, being dominant, benefits from the easement, while Lee's property, as servient, is subject to it. The correct answer, which states that the easement would be terminated if Lee sells her property to Jackson, reflects a specific legal principle: when the owner of the dominant estate acquires the servient estate, the easement is extinguished because one property cannot be both dominant and servient.

This concept stems from the idea that the purpose of the easement is to serve the dominant estate's needs. If the dominant estate becomes the owner of the servient estate, there is no longer any need for the easement, as the owner can access their property without any restrictions or requirements imposed by an easement.

The other responses reflect misunderstandings of how easements operate in relation to property ownership. For instance, easements typically remain in effect regardless of individual sales unless specific conditions intervene, which is why options suggesting the easement ceases with ownership change lack context. It's important to realize that easements are generally attached to the land rather than the owner, unless explicitly terminated or if the properties merge.