Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

easement
willeasement

Related Cases

First Nat. Bank of Bar Harbor v. Anthony, 557 A.2d 957
View Case »
Stortecky v. Mazzone, 85 N.Y.2d 518, 650 N.E.2d 391, 626 N.Y.S.2d 733
View Case »
In re Guardianship of Nelson, 21 Wis.2d 24, 123 N.W.2d 505
View Case »
Julia v. Russo, 984 So.2d 1283, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D1688
View Case »
Estate of Lynch v. Lynch, 991 N.W.2d 95, 2023 S.D. 23
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Koonce v. Brite Estate, 663 S.W.2d 451

Facts

The Estate of J.E. Brite owned a ten-acre tract that was landlocked and sought an easement across a 142-acre tract owned by Genevieve Koonce. This ten-acre tract was originally part of a larger 284-acre tract owned by J.E. Brite and his wife Mabel, who passed away, leaving the property to J.E. Brite. After partitioning the land, the 142 acres were designated for Genevieve Koonce, which became the servient estate in this dispute.

The Estate of J.E. Brite is the owner of a ten acre tract landlocked from public access. This acreage is part of a larger tract originally purchased by J.E. Brite and his wife Mabel in 1931. After Mabel's death J.E. Brite became the sole owner of the ten acres pursuant to her will.

Issue

Did the Estate of J.E. Brite establish the necessary element of unity of ownership between the dominant estate and the servient estate to support an implied easement by necessity?

Did the Estate of J.E. Brite establish the necessary element of unity of ownership between the dominant estate and the servient estate to support an implied easement by necessity?

Rule

The elements needed to establish an implied easement by necessity are: (1) unity of ownership prior to separation; (2) access must be a necessity and not a mere convenience; and (3) the necessity must exist at the time of severance of the two estates.

The elements needed to establish an implied easement by necessity are: (1) unity of ownership prior to separation; (2) access must be a necessity and not a mere convenience; and (3) the necessity must exist at the time of severance of the two estates.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the Brite Estate could prove that the dominant and servient estates were owned as a single unit prior to their separation. The evidence presented did not demonstrate that the ten-acre tract and the 284 acres were ever owned together by J.E. Brite, which is a critical requirement for establishing unity of ownership.

There is no evidence the 10 acre tract and the 284 acres were ever owned as a unit by J.E. Brite.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgments and ruled that the Estate of J.E. Brite take nothing, as they failed to establish the necessary element of unity of ownership.

We reverse the judgments of the courts below and render judgment that the estate of J.E. Brite take nothing.

Who won?

Genevieve Koonce prevailed in the case because the court found that the Brite Estate did not meet the legal requirements to establish an implied easement by necessity.

The Supreme Court… held that there was no evidence that the dominant estate and the estate from which the servient estate was carved were ever owned as a unit by the dominant estate's owner's grantor.

You must be