## Facts

- The Duponts sold approximately 32 acres to the Whitesides in 1980; the parcel had frontage on the St. Johns River and also touched a public road (School Street) on a lower, inland portion separated from the river area by wetlands.
- Before closing, Dupont built a road across the Duponts’ retained land that provided direct access to the riverfront portion where the Whitesides intended to build.
- The Whitesides built a residence on the riverfront portion in 1981 at a cost of about $240,000 and used the road for roughly 14 years.
- The deed to the Whitesides contained no express grant of an easement across the Duponts’ remaining land.
- In 1994, Dupont objected to continued use of the road and gave the Whitesides 60 days to establish alternative access.
- The parties disputed whether the road use was intended to be permanent access or merely temporary permission pending the Whitesides’ construction of their own access from School Street.
- Trial evidence addressed whether constructing alternative access from School Street was physically practicable given wetlands and cost.

## Issues

1. Whether the Whitesides proved the “absolute” necessity required for a common-law or statutory easement of necessity across the Duponts’ retained land.
2. Whether the case should be remanded for determination of an irrevocable license based on the Whitesides’ alleged reliance and expenditures.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment granting an easement of necessity.
- It held that strict/absolute necessity was not shown because the parcel had public-road access and a practicable, though costly and inconvenient, alternative route could be constructed.
- The court declined to treat alleged oral assurances about access as creating an easement where the deed contained no grant.
- The court remanded for further proceedings limited to whether the Whitesides were entitled to an irrevocable license to use the road.

## Legal Principles

- An easement of necessity requires strict or absolute necessity, not mere convenience or avoidance of expense.
- A way of necessity is generally unavailable when there is a practicable means of access to a public road, even if that access is difficult, inconvenient, or costly to develop.
- An easement in land must satisfy the Statute of Frauds; an oral promise or understanding cannot, by itself, create an enforceable easement.
- Reliance-based equitable relief (such as an irrevocable license) is distinct from an easement of necessity and must be separately established.

## Conclusion

The court reversed an easement-of-necessity award because the Whitesides’ property was not strictly landlocked and alternative access from the public road was practicable despite wetlands and expense, and it remanded for consideration of whether the Whitesides’ long-term reliance and substantial improvements supported an irrevocable license.


Dupont v. Whiteside, 721 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1998)