Staley Family Partnership, Ltd. v. Stiles, 483 S.W.3d 545

Staley Family Partnership (Staley) owns a 10.129-acre landlocked parcel (Staley Tract) that was part of an 1858 Texas land grant later partitioned in 1866.
The Staley Tract is bounded by Honey Creek and an impassable tributary on three sides; the only practicable overland access would be north across the adjacent Stiles Tract.
County Road 134 (CR 134) runs along the northern boundary of the Stiles Tract today, but there was no evidence of a public road at that location in 1866.
Staley sued the owners of the Stiles Tract seeking a roadway easement across it by necessity (and previously by estoppel/implication), and the trial court denied relief and awarded fees to Stiles.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding the relevant severance occurred in 1866 and that Staley failed to prove the easement was necessary at that time to reach a public road.
The Texas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that establishment of an easement by necessity requires proof that, at the time of severance, the easement was necessary to reach a public roadway.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Staley is entitled to an easement by necessity across the Stiles Tract	Staley: showing the Staley Tract is landlocked, bounded by impassable creeks, and the only overland route is north across Stiles is sufficient	Stiles: plaintiff must prove that at time of severance an easement across Stiles would have resulted in access to a public road; no evidence of such a road in 1866	Held: No easement by necessity. Plaintiff failed to prove that at severance (1866) an easement across Stiles would have provided access to a public road
Proper date of severance for evaluating necessity	Staley: argues severance may be later (1876)	Stiles: relevant severance was the 1866 probate partition	Held: Relevant severance is 1866 when the common tract was partitioned
Whether later existence of public roads (e.g., 1930s) can establish historical necessity	Staley: later roads show practical access and should support easement	Stiles: necessity must exist at date of severance; later roads are insufficient	Held: Necessity must exist at severance; later roads do not cure lack of historical necessity
Burden of proof for easement by necessity	Staley: claimed facts demonstrated necessity	Stiles: burden on claimant to prove all elements, including historical necessity to a public road	Held: Burden rests with claimant; Staley did not carry it

Hamrick v. Ward, 446 S.W.3d 377 (Tex. 2014) (clarifies easement by necessity elements and focus on access to a public roadway)
Bains v. Parker, 182 S.W.2d 397 (Tex. 1944) (easement may be implied only if it ultimately affords access to a public highway; conditional or permissive routes can defeat necessity)
Othen v. Rosier, 226 S.W.2d 622 (Tex. 1950) (necessity must be shown as of the date of severance)
Koonce v. J.E. Brite Estate, 663 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. 1984) (recognizes implied right of way by necessity when owner retains landlocked parcel)
Ingham v. O’Block, 351 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (reaffirms public road access requirement for easement by necessity)