## Facts

- Ward (plaintiff) and Slavecek (defendant) owned adjacent residential lots that were once a single tract under common ownership.
- In 1919, while the tract was still under one owner, the owner built a driveway leading from a public street along the east side of the tract to a garage located near the west boundary.
- An alley ran along the west side of the property, behind or beside the garage area.
- The tract was later divided into two lots. Ward acquired his lot in 1925, and Slavecek acquired the adjoining lot in 1928.
- After buying his lot, Slavecek built a garage and used the existing driveway in common with Ward, with Ward’s consent.
- For decades, both households used the driveway without a written easement.
- In 1970, Slavecek installed a metal fence along the boundary line between the lots. The fence cut across the driveway and, according to Ward, prevented him from using the driveway to reach his garage and made the garage practically useless.
- Ward sued to establish an easement by implication over the portion of the driveway located on Slavecek’s property.
- After a nonjury trial, the trial court found that Ward could access the garage through the open alley at the west end of Ward’s lot and that there was enough space between the fence (including the gate area) and Ward’s house to allow vehicular access from the public street to the garage without crossing Slavecek’s land.
- The trial court refused to recognize an implied easement, and Ward appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Ward established an easement by implication over the portion of the historic driveway located on Slavecek’s lot based on the driveway’s existence and use before and after the severance of the original tract.
2. Whether the claimed driveway use was necessary (not merely convenient) to Ward’s use and enjoyment of his property, given the trial court’s findings of alternative access via the alley and a route from the public street.

## Decision

- The court of civil appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment for Slavecek.
- Ward did not prove an easement by implication as a matter of law because the driveway across Slavecek’s property was not necessary for Ward’s use of his garage.
- The trial court’s findings that Ward had practical alternative access (via the alley and via remaining space from the street) were supported by evidence and defeated the necessity element required for an implied easement.

## Legal Principles

- An easement by implication based on prior use generally requires: (1) unity of ownership before severance, (2) a use that was apparent and continuous at the time of severance, and (3) necessity for the use and enjoyment of the dominant tract when the property was divided.
- Longstanding shared use of a driveway, even if open and continuous, does not by itself create an implied easement; the claimant must show necessity rather than preference.
- If the claimant has another practical means of access to the garage or improvement—even if less convenient—an implied easement will not be imposed because the necessity element is not met.
- In a bench trial, appellate courts defer to supported fact findings on physical conditions and available access routes when those findings control the necessity analysis.

## Conclusion

Because the evidence supported the trial court’s findings that Ward could reach his garage using the west alley and could also obtain vehicular access from the public street through the remaining space on his own property, Ward’s historic route over Slavecek’s land was not necessary, so no easement by implication arose and the judgment for Slavecek was affirmed.


Ward v. Slavecek, 466 S.W.2d 91 (1971)