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

• Plaintiffs filed a complaint for quiet title to an easement by necessity across a parcel of real property owned by Defendants, seeking a declaration that they had an access easement over a fifty-foot wide strip of Defendants’ property to access a public roadway. The history of the subject land began in 1978 with a conveyance to gSnidow, Inc., which included road easements for access to a highway. Subsequent conveyances led to the Plaintiffs acquiring a tract of land that, due to a series of transactions, became landlocked without direct access to the road easements. Defendants later acquired a tract of land adjacent to Plaintiffs', which included the disputed fifty-foot wide strip. Plaintiffs accessed their property using the road easements and then crossed a portion of land retained by a previous owner to reach their tract. A bench trial concluded that an easement by necessity existed over the disputed strip, allowing Plaintiffs access to their property.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiffs: Argued that they hold an easement by necessity over the fifty-foot wide strip of Defendants’ property for access to a public roadway, based on the historical conveyances and the necessity for access to their landlocked property.
• Defendants: Contended that the district court erred in determining an easement by necessity existed, arguing that Plaintiffs had another means of access, that an easement by necessity can only arise under specific conditions not met in this case, and that the factual findings supporting the district court’s decision were insufficient.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in determining, as a matter of law, that an easement by necessity exists over a strip of Defendants’ property for Plaintiffs to access a public roadway.
• Whether the district court’s factual findings challenged by Defendants are supported by sufficient evidence.

Disposition

• The district court’s judgment determining that Plaintiffs hold an easement by necessity over a strip of Defendants’ property to access a public roadway was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge James J. Wechsler, with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Cynthia A. Fry concurring, held that the district court did not err in its determination of the easement by necessity and that the factual findings challenged by Defendants were supported by sufficient evidence. The court reasoned that easements may be created by express agreement, prescription, or by implication, and an easement by necessity arises where a property owner severs a portion of their property, leaving a part without access to a public route. The court found that all three elements for an easement by necessity were met: unity of title, severance leading to lack of access, and reasonable necessity for the easement at the time of severance. The court also addressed Defendants’ challenges to the sufficiency of evidence regarding their knowledge of the easement, the cost of building an alternative route, and the creation of an easement by an improvement survey report, finding in each instance that the district court’s conclusions were supported by substantial evidence.