195 So. 3d 825
Miss. Ct. App.2015Background
- Joseph and Tina Davidson bought ~2.3 acres on the Escatawpa River (surrounded by water on three sides; Collinses’ land on the east) used primarily for seasonal recreational purposes (sandbar/dock).
- From 2006–2011 Davidsons accessed the parcel via an old Highway 614 right-of-way that crossed Collins property with the Collinses' permission; Collinses revoked permission in 2011 and refused to grant an easement.
- MDOT denied the Davidsons permits to access the parcel across Highway 614 and physically blocked access with boulders.
- Davidsons filed in the county special court of eminent domain under Miss. Code Ann. § 65-7-201 seeking a private right-of-way easement; the county court found the land was landlocked but denied the easement as mere convenience rather than reasonable necessity.
- The court of appeals affirmed: Davidsons’ use was seasonal/recreational, the parcel was accessible by navigable water (public boat launch ~200 yards away), and the proposed route traversed wetlands that flood frequently.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a private right-of-way may be imposed under §65-7-201 as "necessary for ingress and egress" | Davidsons: Property is landlocked (surrounded by water and Collins land); a reasonably necessary private road is warranted | Collinses: Access by navigable water and nearby public boat launch defeats necessity; road would be mere convenience | Held: Denied—no reasonable necessity shown; access by boat and recreational use make boat access sufficient |
| Burden of proof for easement by necessity | Davidsons: They met burden—no other reasonable dry access after MDOT blocked prior route | Collinses: Davidsons failed to prove necessity and practicality; they only seek convenience | Held: Claimant bears burden and Davidsons failed to meet it |
| Relevance of navigable water/public boat launch to necessity | Davidsons: Boat access is not dispositive; statute requires reasonable not absolute necessity | Collinses: Navigable water is equivalent to public highway; availability of boat access defeats easement claim | Held: Navigable water/public launch defeats claim here because use is recreational and boat access is suitable |
| Whether the nature/use of the land (recreational, no utilities, wetlands) supports an easement | Davidsons: Lack of dry access and blocked prior route justify easement despite recreational use | Collinses: Land’s inhospitable/wetland character and seasonal recreational use reduce need for vehicular access | Held: The recreational, flood-prone, unimproved character undercuts reasonable necessity |
Key Cases Cited
- Hooks v. George Cnty., 748 So.2d 678 (Miss. 1999) (statutory "necessary" means reasonably necessary and practical, not absolute necessity)
- Alpaugh v. Moore, 568 So.2d 291 (Miss. 1990) (property bounded on three sides by water and fourth by neighbor supported finding of need for dry access)
- May v. Adirondack Timber, LLC, 129 So.3d 219 (Miss. Ct. App.) (affirming statutory easement where landlocked owner’s need for vehicular access to harvest timber was reasonably necessary)
- Gibbes v. Hinds Cnty. Bd. of Sup’rs, 952 So.2d 1011 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007) (interpretation of "necessary for ingress and egress" as reasonably necessary)
- King v. Gale, 166 So.3d 589 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (claimant seeking easement by necessity bears the burden of proof)