## Facts

- The Kennedys owned a landlocked parcel and sought access to a public road through an easement by necessity over neighboring land, including Bedenbaugh’s tract.
- Both parcels were originally part of a single larger tract once owned by Jacob Lindler.
- In 1884, Lindler conveyed the landlocked tract to S. B. Holley alone; the deed referenced a right of way to a road.
- In 1888–1889, Lindler conveyed the adjoining tract (later Bedenbaugh’s) to S. B. Holley and his wife, C. D. Holley, as tenants in common.
- When C. D. Holley died (1908), she devised her interest in the adjoining tract to S. B. Holley for life, with sale proceeds after his death to be divided among her descendants.
- S. B. Holley died (1917) and devised a one-third interest in the adjoining tract to his second wife and created a life estate in the landlocked tract for her, with remainder to his granddaughter and her husband.
- The adjoining tract was later conveyed to a third party and ultimately to Bedenbaugh (1972); the landlocked tract was eventually conveyed to the Kennedys (1989).
- The Kennedys sued multiple adjoining owners for an easement by necessity; the circuit court granted summary judgment to Bedenbaugh, and the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the unity-of-title element for an easement by necessity is satisfied when the alleged common owner held one tract in fee simple but held the adjoining tract only as a tenant in common with another person.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina affirmed summary judgment for Bedenbaugh.
- The court held unity of title was not established because the alleged common owner did not have absolute ownership of both parcels at the relevant time.
- Because unity of title failed, the Kennedys could not establish an easement by necessity against Bedenbaugh’s tract.

## Legal Principles

- An easement by necessity requires: (1) unity of title in a common grantor of the dominant and servient estates, (2) severance of that title, and (3) necessity at the time of severance.
- “Unity of title” for an easement by necessity requires absolute ownership of both tracts in the same person, not a partial or shared undivided interest in one tract.
- A tenant in common cannot unilaterally impose an easement burdening co-tenants’ interests; therefore, tenancy in common in one tract defeats unity of title when the other tract is held in fee simple.

## Conclusion

The court held that unity of title necessary for an easement by necessity does not exist when one tract is owned in fee simple and the adjoining tract is owned only as a tenancy in common, and it affirmed judgment for the servient-land owner.


Kennedy v. Bedenbaugh, 352 S.C. 56, 572 S.E.2d 452 (S.C. 2002)