Facts
- Carl Nelson owned a single tract of land on which he built a house with a garage positioned so that vehicular access from the only public road (to the south) required a driveway that wrapped around the front of the house on the east and reached the garage at the back/northwest area.
- The west side of the house contained the septic tank and lines, limiting reasonable alternatives for relocating the driveway.
- Nelson constructed and used the driveway as the functional access route from the public road to the garage, and the driveway’s route—including a small curved segment in front of the house—was open and apparent on the ground.
- Nelson later devised the property (house and surrounding land) to Shriners Hospital.
- In 1984, Shriners subdivided the property and sold the undeveloped surrounding land to Hillside Development Co., Inc., conveying all or nearly all of the land where the driveway lay.
- In the 1984 deed to Hillside, Shriners reserved an ingress/egress right-of-way easement to benefit the retained residential lot, but the recorded metes-and-bounds description did not match the existing driveway and omitted a small curved portion located in front of the house.
- In 1987, Shriners sold the residential lot and house to Roscoe Fields. Fields’s title materials indicated that the curved portion of the driveway was outside his parcel and was not included within the recorded express easement.
- Fields continued using the driveway, including the omitted curved segment, as access to the garage.
- In 1993, Hillside sued Fields for trespass (and related relief) based on Fields’s use of the curved segment located on Hillside’s land.
- Fields counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment, asserting an implied easement by prior existing use over the disputed portion of the driveway.
- The trial court ruled for Hillside, rejecting Fields’s implied-easement claim and granting judgment against Fields.
- Fields appealed.
Issues
- Whether, upon severance of common ownership, an implied easement by prior existing use arose in favor of Fields’s residential parcel over the curved portion of the existing driveway located on Hillside’s parcel.
- Whether the existence of an express easement that failed to describe the driveway’s full on-the-ground route, and Fields’s notice of that omission from his title documents, prevented recognition of an implied easement.
Decision
- The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment for Hillside.
- The court held that Fields was entitled to an implied easement over the disputed curved segment of the driveway based on prior existing, apparent, continuous, and permanent use that was reasonably necessary for the residential parcel’s enjoyment.
- The case was remanded with directions consistent with recognizing Fields’s implied easement.
Legal Principles
- Missouri recognizes an implied easement by prior existing use when, at the time a commonly owned tract is divided, a preexisting use of one portion for the benefit of another is apparent, continuous, and intended as permanent, and the use is reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of the benefited parcel.
- “Reasonable necessity” (not absolute necessity) is the standard for an implied easement by prior use; the question is whether the use is reasonably needed for beneficial enjoyment given the property’s physical layout and practical alternatives.
- A long-established driveway serving a residence can satisfy the “apparent” and “continuous” elements when its route is observable and has been used as the customary access way.
- The parties’ intent at severance may be inferred from the visible, on-the-ground arrangement and the established use, even if a recorded easement description is incomplete or inaccurate.
- An express easement that omits part of an existing access way does not automatically defeat an implied easement over the omitted segment when the elements of implied easement by prior use are otherwise met.
- Notice that record documents do not grant an express right over the omitted segment does not, by itself, bar an implied easement that arises from conditions existing at severance.
Conclusion
The appellate court concluded that the driveway, including the curved segment omitted from the recorded easement, was a visible and established access route created and used during common ownership and reasonably necessary for practical garage access given the property’s configuration and septic placement. Because those circumstances supported an implied easement by prior existing use at the time the parcels were split, the court reversed the judgment for Hillside and recognized Fields’s implied easement over the disputed curve.