## Facts

- A private golf course in Sioux Falls historically used an adjacent parking lot serving a nearby supper club; golfers parked there while golfing and dining.
- In 1964, the then-owners (grantors) sold the supper-club parcel, including the parking lot, to the American Legion, severing common ownership between the golf course and the lot.
- After the sale, the golf course’s owners and successors continued using and maintaining the parking lot in the same manner; the use was open and obvious.
- Through later transfers, VBC became owner of the parcel containing the parking lot.
- In 1992, VBC demanded rent for the golf course’s continued use and planned development affecting the lot.
- The golf course owners sued to quiet title, asserting adverse possession and related claims to the disputed area.

## Issues

1. Whether an implied easement arose in favor of the golf course over the parking lot after the 1964 severance of common ownership.
2. Whether the evidence supported the elements for an implied easement by prior use: pre-severance use, apparentness, continuity, and reasonable necessity at the time of severance.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court’s judgment.
- The circuit court correctly rejected the claim of title by adverse possession.
- The circuit court correctly found an implied easement over the parking lot benefiting the golf course property.
- VBC was not entitled to charge rent or terminate the golf course’s use inconsistent with the easement.

## Legal Principles

- An implied easement by prior use may arise upon severance of commonly owned land when, at the time of severance, (1) a use existed benefiting one part of the land, (2) the use was apparent, (3) the use was continuous, and (4) the use was reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the benefited parcel.
- “Reasonable necessity” does not require strict or absolute necessity; it asks whether the use is necessary for the convenient and comfortable enjoyment of the benefited property, considering conditions at severance.
- The existence and scope of an implied easement are fact-intensive; appellate review defers to trial-court findings unless clearly erroneous.
- Open and obvious historical use can support an inference that the parties intended the use to continue after conveyance even without an express deed provision.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an implied easement allowing continued golf-course use of an adjoining parking lot because the lot’s pre-severance use was apparent, continuous, and reasonably necessary to the golf course’s operation at the time the parcel was conveyed.


Peterson v. Beck, 537 N.W.2d 375 (S.D. 1995)