241 So. 3d 636
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 1958 W.H. Hardy acquired an 80-acre tract; in 1977 his sons Hamp (Wade H. Hardy Jr.) and Gene acquired the tract and in 1992 divided it into two 40-acre parcels. Both used "Hardy Lane" for ingress and egress.
- Hardy Lane appears on the county tax map but was never adopted or maintained by Marshall County; both families used it historically to reach homes and structures on their parcels.
- Hamp and his wife Norma moved away in 2006; Hamp later sought to sell his parcel. Gene blocked potential buyers by parking equipment on Hardy Lane and refused to grant an easement to buyers (but did not deny Hamp access).
- Hamp and Norma sued in chancery court seeking an easement by necessity (and asserted a prescriptive easement, which they did not appeal). The chancery court denied the easement by necessity, finding an alternative access existed.
- On appeal, Hamp argued the chancery court applied the wrong legal standard (strict necessity v. reasonable necessity) and that he proved the elements of an easement by necessity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an easement by necessity exists over Hardy Lane | Hamp: Hardy Lane is necessary to access the "home place" and is essential to full enjoyment; easement should be granted | Gene: An alternative access exists; no strict necessity for Hardy Lane | Court: Denied easement by necessity; alternative access existed, so strict necessity not met |
| Proper standard for a way-of-necessity easement | Hamp: Court used strict necessity incorrectly; urges reasonable/utility standard | Gene: Strict-necessity standard applies for ingress/egress ways of necessity | Court: Confirms strict-necessity standard governs ways of necessity for ingress/egress |
| Sufficiency of evidence about alternative route feasibility/cost | Hamp: Alternative route is impractical and cost-prohibitive to reach the home place | Gene: Alternative access is feasible; chancery court observed route and feasibility | Court: Hamp offered no evidence of actual costs or land value; bald assertions insufficient; chancery findings supported |
| Whether chancery court abused discretion in denying easement | Hamp: Chancellor erred and misapplied law | Gene: Chancellor's on-site inspection and factual findings were proper | Court: No abuse of discretion; findings supported by substantial evidence; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Pettigrew, 223 So. 3d 173 (Miss. Ct. App. 2017) (standard of review for chancery findings)
- Wilburn v. Wilburn, 991 So. 2d 1185 (Miss. 2008) (appellate review standards)
- King v. Gale, 166 So. 3d 589 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) (equates easement by necessity with implied easement)
- Davidson v. Collins, 195 So. 3d 825 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016) (burden to prove entitlement to right of way)
- Borne v. Estate of Carraway, 118 So. 3d 571 (Miss. 2013) (elements of easement by necessity)
- Haik v. Gammill, 122 So. 3d 771 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (strict necessity required for access easements)
- Fourth Davis Island Land Co. v. Parker, 469 So. 2d 516 (Miss. 1985) (distinguishes strict necessity for ways of necessity from reasonable necessity for other implied easements)
- Harkness v. Butterworth Hunting Club, Inc., 58 So. 3d 703 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (reaffirms strict-necessity standard for ways of necessity)
- Swenson v. Brouillette, 163 So. 3d 957 (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (insufficient evidence of higher costs for alternative route defeats way-of-necessity claim)