## Facts

- James B. Shelton, III purchased a forty-acre parcel in Raymond, Mississippi, comprised of two adjoining twenty-acre tracts bought together; the parcel lacked road access to a public way.
- The parcel became landlocked after a 1932 division of a larger family-owned tract among heirs.
- The chain of title reflected former unity of ownership between land that later became Shelton’s tract and adjacent tracts, including land later owned by John D. Fike.
- Shelton sought a judicial decree establishing an easement across Fike’s property and other related property; alternatively, he sought relief under Mississippi’s private-road statute through the county board.
- Fike argued Shelton had other ways to reach the parcel because neighboring owners permitted Shelton to cross their land, but the permissions were limited and revocable.
- The chancery court bifurcated proceedings: it first determined entitlement to an easement by necessity, then determined the easement’s width, nature, and location.
- The chancery court recognized an easement by necessity across the Fike and related property and later set the easement’s width at fifty feet, limiting the traveled road and associated shoulders/ditches to about twenty-five feet and reserving the remainder for utilities and repairs.

## Issues

1. Whether the chancery court abused its discretion by recognizing an easement by necessity despite Shelton’s permissive access across other neighbors’ land.
2. Whether Shelton lacked standing or was procedurally barred for failing to exhaust administrative remedies under the private-road statute and for allegedly failing to join necessary parties.
3. Whether the chancery court erred by setting a fifty-foot-wide easement that contemplated utilities and maintenance, rather than only ingress and egress.
4. Whether the chancery court erred by not awarding Fike compensation for the burden placed on his property.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court on all issues.
- The court held the elements of an implied easement by necessity were met: former unity of title, severance, and strict necessity arising from the severance that left the dominant parcel landlocked.
- The court held permissive, revocable access granted by other neighbors did not provide secure legal access and did not defeat necessity.
- The court rejected arguments that Shelton had to exhaust administrative remedies under the private-road statute before seeking an implied easement by necessity, and found no reversible joinder or standing defect.
- The court upheld the fifty-foot width, including space for utilities and repairs, as a reasonable scope for access to support residential use, given the court’s limitation of the traveled way to roughly half the width.
- The court held no additional compensation was due because an easement by necessity is implied from the severance of formerly unified land, with compensation presumed reflected in the original transaction’s value allocation.

## Legal Principles

- An easement by necessity may be implied when (1) the dominant and servient estates were once held in common ownership, (2) the unity of title was severed, and (3) strict necessity for access existed at the time of severance.
- Limited, revocable permission (a license) from neighboring landowners does not supply the permanent, legal access that defeats “necessity” for an implied easement.
- A claim for an implied easement by necessity is not dependent on first pursuing statutory private-road administrative procedures when the claimant seeks recognition of a property right arising from the chain of title.
- The scope and dimensions of an easement by necessity may be set to provide reasonable use of the dominant estate and may include foreseeable incidents of access such as utilities and maintenance areas.
- Because an easement by necessity is treated as arising from the original severance transaction, additional compensation to the servient owner is generally not required beyond what is presumed incorporated into the consideration at severance.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a chancery decree recognizing an implied easement by necessity for a landlocked parcel, holding that revocable neighbor permissions did not defeat strict necessity, that a fifty-foot corridor accommodating roadway and utilities was reasonable, and that no additional compensation to the servient owner was required because the right was implied from the parties’ chain of title.


Fike v. Shelton, 860 So. 2d 1227 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003)