Lichina Trust v. Gjovig Trust
23CA1815
Colo. Ct. App.Mar 20, 2025Background
- The Lichina Revocable Living Trust (Lichina Trust) and the Elinore H. Gjovig Revocable Trust (Gjovig Trust) own neighboring parcels of land in Cascade, El Paso County, Colorado.
- In 1948, the properties were part of a larger tract owned by the Cascade Town Company, which then conveyed the parcels to various parties, resulting in Lichina Trust’s parcel being landlocked.
- Lichina Trust’s parcel lacks access to a public road and historically was accessed by a road across Gjovig Trust’s property; this access was later blocked by Gjovig Trust.
- Lichina Trust sued seeking an implied easement of necessity (and alternatively, a prescriptive easement) across Gjovig Trust’s property; the trial court ruled against Lichina on both claims.
- Gjovig Trust sought attorneys’ fees, arguing Lichina’s claims were groundless; the trial court denied the fee request.
- On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the judgment on the implied easement, affirmed the denial of attorney fees, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied Easement of Necessity | Easement is necessary for access, parcel is landlocked | No necessity at severance; alternative access existed | Trial court erred; necessity and intent supported Lichina claim |
| Existence of Necessity at Severance | Purpose of parcel was residential, evidenced by deed | Original parties thought parcel was unbuildable, no need | Trial court findings unsupported; conveyed for residential use |
| Present Great Necessity | Present conditions make parcel unusable without easement | Only severance time relevant, not present circumstances | Trial court misapplied law; must consider present necessity |
| Attorney Fees for Allegedly Groundless Claims | Claims had factual/legal support | Claims groundless, no evidence for prescriptive period | Trial court did not abuse discretion denying fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Whinnery, 895 P.2d 537 (Colo. 1995) (establishes elements for implied easement of necessity)
- Wagner v. Fairlamb, 379 P.2d 165 (Colo. 1963) (public policy prevents rendering land useless for lack of access)
- Campbell v. Summit Plaza Assocs., 192 P.3d 465 (Colo. App. 2008) (clarifies assessment of necessity at time of suit)
- LeSatz v. Deshotels, 757 P.2d 1090 (Colo. App. 1988) (necessity requires no other reasonable access)