## Facts

- Robert and Nancy Morrell owned a ten-acre parcel at the tip of a peninsula with shoreline frontage but no frontage on a public road.
- The parcel was bordered by marshes and tidal flats; practical land access required crossing the adjoining parcel owned by James and Rita Rice, which had frontage on Harpswell Road.
- An old roadway historically provided access across what became the Rice parcel to what became the Morrell parcel.
- Both parcels originated in Given family ownership and were separated by two intrafamily deeds in April 1810, acknowledged the same day before the same notary and recorded later that month.
- The Rices asserted the Morrell parcel was not landlocked because access was possible by crossing a tidal marsh or by boat; evidence showed water access would require costly dredging and would be limited and seasonal.

## Issues

1. Whether an easement by necessity existed over the Rice parcel benefiting the Morrell parcel, including whether unity of title and necessity were shown despite the 1810 conveyances and alleged alternative access.
2. Whether the easement by necessity included the right to install underground utility lines within the access corridor.
3. Whether the trial court properly limited the easement’s use to serving only a single-family residence on the Morrell parcel.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the declaration of an easement by necessity over the Rice parcel for access to the Morrell parcel.
- The court affirmed that the easement included the right to install underground utilities, so long as the use did not unreasonably burden the servient estate.
- The court modified the judgment to delete the single-family-residence limitation and, as modified, affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- An easement by necessity arises when (1) parcels were once under unity of title, (2) a severance occurs, and (3) the severance leaves one parcel without practicable access to a public way.
- Unity of title and common grantor intent may be inferred from closely related, effectively simultaneous conveyances that function as part of one severance arrangement.
- “Necessity” is measured by practical access; theoretical, seasonal, or prohibitively expensive alternatives do not defeat an easement by necessity.
- The scope of an easement by necessity includes uses reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant estate and may include underground utilities when they do not unduly interfere with the servient estate.
- Courts should not impose development-specific restrictions on an easement by necessity absent evidentiary support that broader lawful use would impose an unreasonable burden on the servient estate.

## Conclusion

The court held that the Morrell parcel was practically landlocked and therefore benefitted from an easement by necessity across the Rice parcel; it permitted underground utilities as a reasonable incident of access and removed an unsupported restriction limiting the easement to a single-family residence.


Morrell v. Rice, 622 A.2d 1156 (Me. 1993)