Semones v. Garcia

Summary

The New Mexico Court of Appeals considers whether the plaintiff was entitled to an easement by necessity over the defendant’s property. The court holds that the required curtailment of access and reasonable necessity must exist when the dominant and servient estates are severed, and that later loss of access does not establish an easement by necessity. The court reverses the district court judgment and remands.

Holdings

1. An easement by necessity requires proof by clear and convincing evidence of unity of title, curtailment of access to a public roadway caused by the severance, and reasonable necessity for a right of way at the time of severance. Because the Semones Property had access to a public roadway when it was severed in 1927, the curtailment and reasonable-necessity elements were not established, and no easement by necessity arose.
2. A necessity arising after the severance of commonly owned parcels cannot establish an easement by necessity over the severed parcel.
3. The absence of evidence that the parties intended to deprive the dominant property of access does not, by itself, establish an easement by necessity. The three required elements must first be proven before an implied intent to convey or reserve access arises.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court's unchallenged factual findings established the curtailment-of-access and reasonable-necessity elements of an easement by necessity.
2. Whether a property owner's later loss of access to a public roadway, occurring after the severance of commonly owned parcels, can create an easement by necessity.
3. Whether the absence of evidence that the parties to the severing conveyance intended to deprive the property of access supports recognition of an easement by necessity when the required elements are otherwise unproven.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded