## Facts

- A predecessor of BellSouth owned a single tract in Denmark, South Carolina, containing a multi-story building and a driveway leading to Beech Avenue, secured by a gate.
- During unified ownership, the driveway and gate were used to access the rear of the building.
- In 1988, the owner severed the tract, selling the front parcel with the building to the City of Denmark while retaining the rear parcel containing the driveway and gate.
- Denmark later sold the front parcel to John Boyd, who conveyed it to Caroline Boyd; Boyd operated an antique store in the building.
- Denmark and Boyd used the driveway and gate on BellSouth’s retained parcel to reach the building’s rear entrance, including for large deliveries.
- After September 11, 2001, BellSouth planned a security fence between the parcels that would block Boyd’s access via the driveway and gate.
- Boyd filed a declaratory judgment action asserting an easement over BellSouth’s parcel based on (1) implied easement by prior use, (2) easement by necessity, and (3) easement by equitable estoppel.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on Boyd’s claim for an easement implied by prior use, including whether the “necessity” element presented a triable issue.
2. Whether Boyd established an easement by equitable estoppel despite recorded instruments reflecting no easement.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals.
- It allowed the implied-easement-by-prior-use claim to proceed, holding summary judgment was improper because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to necessity for enjoyment of Boyd’s parcel.
- It reinstated summary judgment for BellSouth on the equitable estoppel claim, holding Boyd failed to prove the elements of estoppel given record notice of no easement.
- The easement-by-necessity claim remained resolved against Boyd because her parcel had street frontage and was not landlocked.

## Legal Principles

- An easement implied by prior use may arise upon severance of commonly owned tracts when the prior use was apparent, continuous, and necessary at the time of severance.
- The “necessity” required for an implied easement by prior use is less demanding than the strict necessity required for an easement by necessity.
- Summary judgment is improper where evidence permits reasonable factfinders to differ on whether prior use is sufficiently necessary for enjoyment of the claimed dominant estate.
- Equitable estoppel requires reasonable, detrimental reliance on conduct or representations; reliance is not reasonable when recorded title and readily discoverable public records show no easement.
- A parcel with access to public streets generally cannot satisfy strict necessity for an easement by necessity over a neighbor’s land.

## Conclusion

The court held that Boyd could pursue an implied easement by prior use because factual disputes existed over whether continued rear-access use was necessary for enjoyment of the property, but it rejected equitable estoppel because recorded title disclosed no easement and Boyd’s asserted reliance was not reasonable.


Boyd v. BellSouth Tel. Tel. Co., 369 S.C. 410, 633 S.E.2d 136 (S.C. 2006)