122 So. 3d 771
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Haiks sue Gammills/Balls to bar access via Service Road on Haiks’ Ravenna property; Gammills/Balls counterclaim for easement over Service Road.
- Chancellor awards implied easement by necessity for ingress/egress along Service Road to Gammills/Balls.
- Gammills/Balls also hold an express Dedicated Road easement (1968) and argue it affects access routes.
- Chancellor finds Dedicated Road easement not abandoned and that Service Road access remains.
- Dispute over whether Service Road easement is appurtenant or merely to a 2.3-acre tract, and whether relocation of the Service Road is proper.
- Haiks appeal challenging easement by necessity/appurtenance and related rulings; cross-appeal challenges non-abandonment finding and relocation order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Easement by necessity established over Service Road? | Haiks: no strict necessity; Dedicated Road provides alternate access. | Gammills/Balls: no access except via Service Road; necessity exists. | Yes; easement by necessity affirmed. |
| Easement appurtenant vs. express grant over Service Road? | Haiks: easement limited to 2.3-acre tract; others get no rights. | Gammills/Balls: Service Road easement runs with land and benefits multiple lots. | Easement runs with the land (appurtenant/benefits multiple lots). |
| Admission of expert testimony under Rule 26? | Haiks: Edwards/Green/Huber undisclosed; improper designation. | Gammills/Balls complied; testimony needed for location and costs. | No reversible error; no abuse of discretion. |
| Relocation of the Service Road permissible to original location? | Haiks: insufficient evidence for relocation. | Gammills/Balls seek restoration to original path. | Order to restore to original Service Road bed upheld. |
| Whether the Dedicated Road Easement had been abandoned? | Haiks: non-use shows abandonment; fencing/obstructions show intent. | No clear intent to abandon; non-use alone insufficient. | Not abandoned; cross-appeal denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc. v. Rowell, 819 So.2d 1281 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (burden to prove implied easement by necessity; strict necessity standard)
- Broadhead v. Terpening, 611 So.2d 949 (Miss. 1992) (easement by necessity arises from severance; continues as long as necessity exists)
- Quin v. Sabine, 183 Miss. 375, 183 So. 701 (Miss. 1938) (preserves easement rights when property abuts public highway and internal lands rely on exterior lands)
- K-Mart Corp. v. Hardy, 735 So.2d 975 (Miss. 1999) (harm standard for evidentiary error on appeal)
- Johnson v. Hinds Cnty., 524 So.2d 947 (Miss. 1988) (factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Sanderson v. Sanderson, 824 So.2d 623 (Miss. 2002) (standard for affirming chancellor’s findings of fact)
- Wis. Ave. Props., Inc. v. First Church of Nazarene, 768 So.2d 914 (Miss. 2000) (easements appurtenant run with land)