McCormick v. Schubring, 267 Wis. 2d 141

Summary

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that an easement of necessity generally arises through the circuit court's exercise of discretion rather than automatically by operation of law. The court also held that a landowner who stands in the shoes of a grantor may obtain an easement of necessity and affirmed the judgment granting the McCormicks vehicular access across Schubring's property.

Holdings

1. An easement of necessity generally does not arise automatically as a matter of law merely because the preliminary elements are established; its creation and scope are ordinarily subject to the circuit court's equitable discretion.
2. A person who stands in the shoes of a grantor who formerly had highway access but retained a landlocked parcel after severance may obtain an easement of necessity, provided the preliminary elements are established and the equities support the easement.
3. The circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in granting the McCormicks an easement of necessity, including vehicular access.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an easement of necessity arises automatically by operation of law when the required elements are established or instead arises through the circuit court's exercise of discretion.
2. Whether a person who stands in the shoes of a grantor who formerly had access to a public highway, but retained a landlocked parcel after severance of part of the property, may obtain an easement of necessity.
3. Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by granting the McCormicks an easement of necessity, including vehicular access.

Disposition

affirmed