AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 concerns two contiguous parcels of land, "lot 13" and a "2.2-acre parcel," which were divided in 1957 but were under common ownership from 1963 to 1984. In 1984, a conveyance left the 2.2-acre parcel landlocked. The Plaintiff acquired the 2.2-acre parcel in 1992 and sought to impose an easement by necessity on lot 13, owned by the Defendants, to gain access to a public road (paras 1-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, holding that the unity of title required to support an easement by necessity was lacking because the parcels had been divided and treated as separate lots (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that New Mexico law does not require the dominant and servient estates to originate from a single undivided parcel to establish an easement by necessity. The Plaintiff contended that the facts established below were sufficient to impose an easement by necessity over lot 13 (paras 1, 15, 24).
• Defendants-Appellees: Asserted that the unity of title necessary for an easement by necessity requires the dominant and servient estates to have been part of a single undivided parcel prior to severance. They also argued that factual issues regarding the intent of the parties precluded summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff (paras 6, 15).

Legal Issues

• Does New Mexico law require the dominant and servient estates to originate from a single undivided parcel to establish an easement by necessity?
• Can the intent of the parties regarding the creation of an easement by necessity be determined as a matter of law from the present record?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment granted to the Defendants and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings (paras 25-26).

Reasons

Per Black J. (Alarid and Hartz JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that New Mexico law does not require the dominant and servient estates to be carved out of a single undivided parcel to establish unity of title for an easement by necessity. Instead, unity of title exists if the grantor owns both parcels at the time of severance (paras 13, 25).
• The Court rejected the Defendants' reliance on dicta from prior cases and clarified that the critical time for determining the existence of an easement by necessity is the moment of severance of the dominant and servient estates (paras 6-14).
• The Court emphasized that the creation of an easement by necessity depends on the intent of the parties, as inferred from the language of the deed and surrounding circumstances. Since the intent could not be determined as a matter of law from the record, summary judgment was inappropriate (paras 15-24).
• The case was remanded to the district court to resolve factual issues regarding the intent of the parties (paras 24-26).