Facts
- In 1910, Henry H. Buckman owned multiple tracts in Block 33 of the St. Lucie Inlet Farms subdivision.
- In March 1913, Buckman conveyed a parcel described as the north 200 feet of the south 500 feet of Tract 1, Block 33, which had no access to a public road except by crossing Buckman’s remaining land.
- Buckman retained surrounding land that abutted a public right-of-way; later conveyances placed that surrounding/access land in Euro-Holland Vastgoed, B.V.
- Through multiple intervening conveyances, Maurice and Lillian Roy acquired the landlocked parcel.
- The Roys had no practical ingress or egress to a public road except across Euro-Holland’s property.
- The Roys sued for a common law way of necessity (implied easement by necessity), referencing § 704.01(1), Florida Statutes (1979).
- After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for defendants, finding the Roys failed to prove (1) unity of title in a common source and (2) reasonable necessity.
- The Roys appealed.
Issues
- Whether unity of title for a common law easement of necessity is satisfied by original common ownership at the time the landlocked parcel was created, even if the plaintiffs’ immediate grantor never owned the servient land.
- Whether a landlocked parcel with no access to a public road except over the neighboring tract satisfies the “reasonable necessity” element for an implied way of necessity.
- Whether an implied easement of necessity arising at severance runs with the land and benefits/burdens subsequent purchasers of the dominant and servient estates.
Decision
- The appellate court reversed the final judgment for the defendants.
- The court held unity of title existed because Buckman owned both the conveyed parcel and the retained access land at the 1913 severance that created the landlocked condition.
- The court held the Roys proved reasonable necessity because their parcel lacked ingress and egress to a public way except over Euro-Holland’s property.
- The court recognized a common law easement (way) of necessity benefiting the Roys’ parcel and burdening Euro-Holland’s land, despite intervening transfers.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with recognizing and implementing the easement.
Legal Principles
- A common law way of necessity may be implied when, upon severance of commonly owned property, one resulting parcel is left without access to a public road except over the other.
- Unity of title is assessed at the time of the severance creating the necessity; it does not require that the dominant owner’s immediate predecessor also owned the servient tract.
- The necessity element for an implied easement of necessity is “reasonable necessity” for beneficial use and enjoyment, satisfied where the parcel is effectively landlocked.
- An easement of necessity implied at severance runs with the land, benefiting subsequent owners of the dominant estate and burdening subsequent owners of the servient estate.
Conclusion
The court reversed a judgment denying access and held that a way of necessity arose when a common owner conveyed a landlocked parcel while retaining the only route to a public road; because unity of title is determined at that severance and the necessity remained, the implied easement continued through later conveyances and bound subsequent owners.