(dissenting):
I respectfully dissent because I conclude an appurtenant easement was established in the contract for the sale of the land from Covington to Windham. The majority finds no appurtenant easement was created because Covington needed to both (1) retain a sufficient interest in the land he sold by contract to Windham, and (2) remain the owner of the dominant estate until title passed to Windham. I am not convinced either proposition is essential to the creation of the easement appurtenant in this case.
As a threshold issue, there is a question as to the proper scope of appellate review. As stated in the majority opinion, the determination of the extent of an easement is a question in equity, allowing the appellate court to take its own view of the evidence. Slear v. Hanna, 329 S.C. 407, 410-11, 496 S.E.2d 633, 635 (1998). However, the determination whether an easement exists is a question of fact in a law case subject to an “any evidence” standard of review when tried by a judge without a jury. Id. at 410, 496 S.E.2d at 635; Jowers v. Hornsby, 292 S.C. 549, 551-52, 357 S.E.2d 710, 711 (1987). If this case is viewed from the standpoint of whether an appurtenant easement was created, then it is a law case and our scope of review is narrow. Nevertheless, I am convinced that under either a narrow or broad scope of review, the trial judge’s analysis should prevail.
*422The key to resolving this case lies in determining when the easement was created. The majority cites Haselden v. Schein, 167 S.C. 534, 539, 166 S.E. 634, 635 (1932), for the proposition that an easement cannot exist where both the purported servient and dominant estates are owned by the same person. Because Covington retained bare legal title to the tract he sold by contract to Windham, the majority opinion concludes his ownership violates the Haselden rule. However, the facts and holding of Haselden are inapposite. In Haselden, the dominant and servient estates were merged well after the creation of the easement, and the court ultimately concluded the easement was not extinguished, stating “[t]he rule of law that an easement may be extinguished by the conveyance of the servient estate without notice to the purchaser, of the easement, carries with it the idea that there has been an intentional concealment or deception which imposed upon the purchaser. No such thing is shown here.” Id. at 540, 166 S.E. at 636. There is no contention that any concealment, intentional or otherwise, is involved in this case.
In my view, the majority errs in dismissing the possibility that the easement was created in the contract for the sale of the land from Covington to Windham. That document, rather than the deed, is the instrument that established the legal relationship between the parties. It was the functional equivalent of a conveyance coupled with a method of financing “frequently called a ‘poor man’s mortgage.’ ” See Lewis v. Premium Inv. Corp., 351 S.C. 167, 171, 568 S.E.2d 361, 363 (2002) (containing an excellent discussion concerning the nature and characteristics of an installment contract for the sale of land). All rights of possession to the land described in the contract were conveyed to Windham, and had Covington not reserved the easement in the contract, he would never have been able to assert an easement of any type upon the later transfer of the bare legal title, even if he had still owned the dominant estate. Any attempt to do so would have been a breach of the terms of the contract that established the legal relationship between the parties.
There is little legal distinction, insofar as the respective rights of the parties are concerned, between a transaction consisting of a deed and note and mortgage as security for the payment of the remaining purchase price and an executory *423contract requiring retention of the title in the seller until the purchase price is totally paid. As stated in Lewis, “[f]or years, in an executory contract for the sale of land our Court has equated the vendor with the mortgagee and the vendee with the mortgagor.” Id. at 173, 568 S.E.2d at 364 (citing Dempsey v. Huskey, 224 S.C. 536, 80 S.E.2d 119 (1954)); see also Southern Pole Bldgs., Inc. v. Williams, 289 S.C. 521, 524, 347 S.E.2d 121, 122-23 (Ct.App.1986).
Because I conclude the easement appurtenant was created in the contract for the sale of the land, no discussion of the requirement that an appurtenant easement have one terminus on the land of the party claiming is necessary. See Springob v. Farrar, 334 S.C. 585, 589, 514 S.E.2d 135, 137 (Ct.App.1999) (requiring an appurtenant easement have a terminus on the land of the party claiming the easement). Nevertheless, Springob, heavily relied upon by the majority, is easily distinguishable. In Springob, the person who reserved the easement never owned the purported dominant estate, only owning at one time the servient estate. Id. at 587, 514 S.E.2d at 136. In this case, Covington unquestionably owned the dominant estate at the time the contract was entered into.
Furthermore, the fact that the Riddle deed did not create an appurtenant easement, as noted in footnote 2 of the majority opinion, is not dispositive. The deed to the Riddles could not have been an instrument used to create an easement over the Windham tract. It could have mentioned that easement, since the Riddle deed conveyed the dominant estate. However, there is no necessity to expressly mention an easement appurtenant when conveying the dominant estate. Smith v. Comm’rs of Pub. Works, 312 S.C. 460, 468, 441 S.E.2d 331, 336 (Ct.App.1994). The easement is but one of the numerous “rights, members, hereditament and appurtenances to said premises belonging, or in any wise incident or appertaining” and accompanies the conveyance of the fee. S.C.Code Ann. § 27-7-10 (Rev. 1991).
In my judgment, all the elements necessary for the creation of an easement appurtenant were in existence at the time the contract was entered into between Covington and Windham, and the later conveyance of the “bare legal title” was a *424required fulfillment of the contractual terms already set in stone. I would affirm, and I therefore dissent.