## Facts

- A 2.2-acre parcel and adjacent subdivision lot 13 are contiguous parcels near Santa Fe, New Mexico.
- Stamm Development Company (SDC) acquired a large tract, created the Casa Solana subdivision, conveyed subdivision lots to Allen Stamm and Associates (ASA), and retained the 2.2-acre parcel.
- An affidavit from the president of SDC and ASA stated that when subdivision lots were conveyed to ASA, the 2.2-acre parcel had alternate access to a public road.
- In 1963, ASA conveyed lot 13 to Merritt and Mary Barton, and SDC conveyed the 2.2-acre parcel to the Bartons at the same time.
- In 1982, the Bartons conveyed both lot 13 and the 2.2-acre parcel to First Interstate Bank in a single deed.
- In 1984, the Bank conveyed lot 13 to a third party while retaining the 2.2-acre parcel, leaving the 2.2-acre parcel landlocked; lot 13 ultimately was acquired by Alfred and Theresa Medina.
- In 1992, the Bank conveyed the landlocked 2.2-acre parcel to Michael Hurlocker by special warranty deed.
- Hurlocker received a title commitment and title policy indicating access problems and that access was not insured; an appraisal reduced value by 50% due to access concerns.
- Hurlocker sued the Medinas seeking an easement by necessity over lot 13 as access to the 2.2-acre parcel.

## Issues

1. Whether an easement by necessity in New Mexico requires that the dominant and servient estates originate from a single physically undivided parcel, or whether common ownership at severance can satisfy unity of title.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where the district court treated the parcels’ historical treatment as separate “lots” as defeating unity of title as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the Medinas and remanded.
- The court held that New Mexico law does not require the dominant and servient estates to have been created out of one physically undivided parcel to satisfy unity of title.
- Because an easement by necessity depends on implied intent inferred from circumstances, the court concluded the claim was not barred as a matter of law by the parcels’ prior subdivision status.
- The court left for the trial court on remand factual determinations bearing on whether an easement by necessity should be recognized.

## Legal Principles

- An easement by necessity arises from implied grant or reservation to provide ingress and egress to a landlocked parcel.
- “Unity of title” for an easement by necessity may be satisfied by common ownership followed by severance that creates landlocked necessity; it is not limited to parcels carved from a single undivided tract.
- The doctrine rests on implied intent, including the presumption that a grantor intends to convey a usable parcel and does not intend to create inaccessible property.
- A later purchaser’s awareness of access problems does not, by itself, negate a claim that an easement by necessity arose at an earlier severance based on the parties’ implied intent.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that unity of title for an easement by necessity is not defeated merely because parcels were historically platted or treated as separate lots; common ownership at severance can suffice, and the case required further proceedings to determine whether the elements of an easement by necessity were met.


Hurlocker v. Medina, 878 P.2d 348 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994)