## Facts

- Stellar Development Corporation developed a combined commercial–residential “fly-in” community with a runway and related facilities.
- Chandler Flyers, Inc. owned a commercially zoned parcel within the development that was adjacent to a public highway providing motor-vehicle access.
- A taxiway connecting to the runway ran near Chandler Flyers’ parcel, but deed restrictions and covenants reserved that taxiway for owners of abutting residential properties.
- In prior litigation, Chandler Flyers was enjoined from using the taxiway; no appeal was taken, and the injunction became final.
- Chandler Flyers sought to operate a flight school and airplane sales center and requested an easement implied by necessity over Stellar’s land to obtain aircraft access to the runway.
- The trial court denied the easement; Chandler Flyers appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a parcel with existing public highway access is entitled to an easement implied by necessity over a developer’s land to obtain aircraft access to a runway in a fly-in development.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Arizona affirmed the judgment denying an easement by necessity.
- The court held that reasonable access already existed via the public highway, defeating the claim of necessity.
- The court limited the appeal to necessity; prior questions about rights involving the taxiway were foreclosed by the final injunction.

## Legal Principles

- An easement by necessity may be implied only when required to provide reasonable access to the claimant’s land; absolute necessity is not required, but convenience, increased profitability, or preference is insufficient.
- When a parcel has reasonable access by an existing route (including public road access), necessity for an additional implied easement is not established.
- The necessity doctrine does not create a right to a particular mode of access (e.g., aircraft taxi access) if the property remains reasonably accessible and can be effectively used without the requested easement.
- Prior final judgments can narrow later litigation by precluding relitigation of access theories tied to previously adjudicated routes.

## Conclusion

Because Chandler Flyers’ property had reasonable vehicular access from a public highway, it was not entitled to an easement implied by necessity for aircraft access across Stellar’s land, even if aircraft access would better support its desired aviation-related business use.


Chandler Flyers, Inc. v. Stellar Dev. Corp., 592 P.2d 387 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979)