## Facts

- The dispute involved waterfront parcels on Green Bay in Door County, Wisconsin, bounded by Green Bay to the west and a steep bluff to the east.
- The United States originally owned the land and conveyed three government lots (Lots 2, 3, and 4) beginning in 1854.
- At the time of the federal conveyances, each lot had access to a public road, and the government did not reserve rights-of-way or easements.
- Over time, the lots were subdivided; the petitioners acquired waterfront parcels in what had been Lot 2.
- A private road across some neighboring parcels existed (the Hobler–Lenz road), and the respondents’ parcels lay between petitioners’ parcels and the nearest public road.
- Petitioners’ land at one time extended up and over the bluff to the public roadway.
- Petitioners conveyed away the portion providing highway access without reserving an easement or other access right.
- After those conveyances, petitioners’ parcels became effectively landlocked between the bay and the bluff.
- Petitioners pursued access through local government channels without success and then filed suit seeking judicial recognition of access and utility rights over respondents’ lands.

## Issues

1. Whether petitioners were entitled to an easement by implication or by necessity over respondents’ land based on historical common ownership and conveyances or current geographic constraints.
2. Whether Wisconsin common law should be expanded to recognize a new necessity doctrine for landlocked property based on geography and the common grantor’s actions, using a “reasonable use” balancing test.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed dismissal of the declaratory judgment action.
- The court held petitioners did not establish an easement by implication because the record did not show an apparent, continuous, and permanent prior use (a quasi-easement) at the time of severance.
- The court held petitioners did not establish an easement by necessity because the parcels were not landlocked at the time of severance by the relevant common owner, and the landlocked condition was created by petitioners’ own conveyances.
- The court declined to expand Wisconsin common law to create a new form of necessity easement or to adopt a “reasonable use” balancing test, citing the burdens imposed on servient estates and the availability of legislative mechanisms for access.

## Legal Principles

- An easement by implication requires common ownership followed by severance, a prior use that is apparent, continuous, and permanent, and reasonable necessity for enjoyment of the dominant estate at the time of severance.
- A way of necessity requires unity of title, severance, and lack of reasonable access to a public road at the time of severance by the common grantor.
- No easement by necessity arises when the property was not landlocked at severance and later becomes landlocked due to the owner’s voluntary conveyance of access without reserving an easement.
- Courts construe implied and necessity easements narrowly because they impose nonconsensual burdens on another’s land; significant policy changes concerning access for landlocked parcels are generally for the legislature.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to impose access rights over neighboring land where the parcels had public-road access when originally severed and became landlocked only because the owners conveyed away their own access without reserving an easement, and it declined to broaden common-law necessity doctrines in light of existing legislative remedies.


Schwab v. Timmons, 224 Wis. 2d 27, 589 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 1999)