## Facts

- BellSouth’s predecessor built a three-story building on a Denmark, South Carolina lot; during unified ownership a driveway ran from the building’s rear to Beech Avenue through what later remained BellSouth’s parcel.
- In 1988, BellSouth severed the property and sold the parcel containing the building to the City of Denmark, retaining the parcel containing the driveway and Beech Avenue gate.
- The City and later Caroline Boyd (who used the building for an antique store) continued using BellSouth’s driveway and gate to access the building’s rear entrance for deliveries.
- After September 11, 2001, BellSouth planned a security fence that would block Boyd’s use of the driveway and gate.
- Boyd asserted rear access was important for moving large items into the basement through rear double doors and claimed alternatives were impractical and expensive.
- Boyd sought a declaration recognizing an easement over BellSouth’s retained parcel based on implied prior use, necessity, and equitable estoppel.
- A special referee granted summary judgment to BellSouth on all theories; the court of appeals affirmed as to necessity but reversed and remanded as to implied prior use and estoppel.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on Boyd’s claim for an easement implied by prior use over BellSouth’s driveway.
2. Whether Boyd established an easement by necessity requiring strict necessity at severance.
3. Whether BellSouth’s conduct in allowing use of the driveway equitably estopped it from denying an easement.

## Decision

- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- Implied easement by prior use: affirmed the court of appeals; genuine issues of material fact (especially reasonable necessity) made summary judgment improper.
- Easement by necessity: affirmed summary judgment for BellSouth; Boyd’s parcel was not strictly necessary for access because it had street access.
- Equitable estoppel: reversed the court of appeals; reinstated summary judgment for BellSouth because permissive use without misleading representations or concealment was legally insufficient.

## Legal Principles

- An easement implied by prior use requires prior unity of title, an apparent and continuous use indicating intended permanence before severance, and reasonable necessity for enjoyment of the dominant estate.
- An easement by necessity requires strict necessity at the time of severance; convenience or high cost of alternatives does not satisfy strict necessity where the parcel has public street access.
- Equitable estoppel to establish an easement requires misleading conduct (false representation or concealment of material facts), expectation it will be acted on, knowledge by the landowner, and reasonable reliance with resulting injury; long-term acquiescence alone is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Boyd’s implied-prior-use easement claim to proceed because reasonable necessity and related facts required further fact-finding, but it rejected easement-by-necessity and equitable-estoppel theories as a matter of law and remanded for proceedings limited to implied prior use.


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