## Facts

- Joanna Palmer owned approximately 44 acres in Albemarle County, Virginia, fronting State Route 736.
- R.A. Yancey Lumber Corporation owned approximately 317 contiguous acres in Albemarle and Nelson Counties that were historically landlocked, with both properties tracing to a common owner whose land was subdivided in 1828.
- Access to Yancey’s property existed through an access road crossing Palmer’s land and connecting to Route 736.
- The parties stipulated that Yancey held an easement by necessity over Palmer’s land for access to Yancey’s landlocked tract.
- Yancey sought court approval to modify and widen portions of the access road (including the entrance and curves) to permit safe ingress and egress by tractor-trailers used in commercial timber operations.
- Palmer objected that the changes would alter the character and appearance of her property and create a more commercial-looking entrance.

## Issues

1. Under Virginia law, may an easement by necessity be expanded or modified in width or configuration without the servient owner’s consent when reasonably necessary for use of the dominant estate?
2. Did the approved widening and related improvements impose an unreasonable additional burden on the servient estate, making the order improper?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s final order.
- The Court held that, under a reasonable-necessity standard, the width of an existing easement by necessity may be expanded without the servient owner’s consent, so long as the modification does not impose an unreasonable burden on the servient estate.
- The Court concluded the circuit court’s approval of specified widening and safety-related modifications for tractor-trailer access was supported by evidence and was not plainly wrong.

## Legal Principles

- An easement by necessity arises when a conveyance leaves the dominant tract without practical access except over the servient tract.
- The scope of an easement by necessity is defined by reasonable necessity for the beneficial use of the dominant estate, not by a fixed historic width.
- The dominant owner may make reasonable changes in the easement’s dimensions (including widening) when reasonably necessary for the dominant estate’s use, provided the changes do not unduly or unreasonably increase the burden on the servient estate.
- Appellate review defers to the trial court’s supported factual findings; an approval order will stand unless plainly wrong or without evidentiary support.

## Conclusion

Virginia upheld a trial court order allowing a landlocked timber owner to widen and improve an easement by necessity to accommodate tractor-trailer access, applying a reasonable-necessity standard limited by the prohibition on unreasonable added burdens to the servient land.


Palmer v. R.A. Yancey Lumber Corp., 294 Va. 140, 803 S.E.2d 742 (Va. 2017)