This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves a dispute over an easement by necessity. The Defendants claimed an easement across the Plaintiff's property to access a public highway, as their land was landlocked and lacked alternative access. The Plaintiff owned three adjoining parcels of land, and the Defendants' property abutted the western edge of one of these parcels. The land surrounding the Defendants' property was either swampy, inaccessible, or owned by third parties (paras 1-6).
Procedural History
- Trial court, May 27, 1988: Found that the Defendants were the owners of an express easement across the Plaintiff's property.
- Court of Appeals, prior decision (date unspecified): Held that the Defendants failed to establish an express easement and remanded the case to the trial court to determine whether an easement by necessity existed (paras 2-3).
- Trial court, July 20, 1988: Entered an amended judgment finding that the Defendants were the owners of an easement by necessity across the Plaintiff's property (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff: Argued that the trial court erred in concluding that the Defendants had established an easement by necessity. The Plaintiff contended that the findings were insufficient to support the conclusion and that the Defendants had alternative access to their property through a permissive route until 1983, which precluded the necessity for an easement (paras 9, 12).
- Defendants: Claimed that their property was landlocked and that an easement by necessity was required to access a public highway. They argued that the necessity for the easement arose at the time of the original severance of the property from a common grantor (paras 1, 12-13).
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court err in finding that the Defendants established an easement by necessity?
- Was the trial court's conclusion of law supported by sufficient findings of fact?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the Defendants had established an easement by necessity (paras 8, 18).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Minzner and Apodaca JJ. concurring):
The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's findings and conclusions. It reasoned that an easement by necessity arises when a landlocked parcel is severed from a larger tract, and access to a public roadway is reasonably necessary. The Court found that the Defendants' property and the Plaintiff's property were originally part of a single unit owned by a common grantor, satisfying the unity of title requirement.
The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the Defendants' prior permissive access to their property precluded the necessity for an easement. It held that revocable permission does not negate the existence of an easement by necessity. The trial court's findings, viewed in their entirety, supported the conclusion that the Defendants lacked an alternative, non-permissive means of access at the time of the original severance. The Court emphasized that findings of fact should be construed to uphold the judgment unless clearly erroneous (paras 10-17).
The judgment of the trial court was affirmed (para 18).