David Berge v. State of Vermont
915 A. 2d 189, 2006 VT 116 (2006)
Rule of Law:
Access to a landlocked parcel via a navigable waterway does not, by itself, defeat a claim for an easement by necessity. The determinative factor is whether the landowner has reasonably practical access sufficient for the reasonable enjoyment of the land.
Facts:
- In 1959, Florence Davis owned a large tract of land, including a parcel on the shore of Norton Pond.
- In 1959, Davis subdivided her property, conveying 7,001 acres to the State of Vermont, which became the Bill Slydak Wildlife Management Area (WMA).
- Davis retained a 38-acre parcel, the Norton Pond Exclusion, which became entirely surrounded by the land sold to the State.
- The 1959 deed conveying the land to the State did not reserve any express easement for access to the Norton Pond Exclusion.
- In 1961, Davis sold the Norton Pond Exclusion, which was eventually subdivided, and in 1997, David Berge purchased two of the lots.
- For years, Berge accessed his property via a gravel road that crossed the WMA.
- The State of Vermont later placed a gate across the access road, preventing Berge from reaching his property by land.
Procedural Posture:
- David Berge filed a complaint in the Washington Superior Court (a trial court), seeking to enjoin the State of Vermont from obstructing an access road to his property.
- Berge asserted a claim for an easement by necessity over the State's land.
- The State moved for summary judgment, arguing that Berge's ability to access his property via Norton Pond defeated the 'necessity' element of his claim.
- The trial court granted the State's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of the State.
- Berge, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does access to a landlocked parcel of land via a navigable waterway defeat a claim for an easement by necessity under Vermont law?
Opinions:
Majority - Dooley, J.
No. Access to a property by navigable water does not defeat a claim for an easement by necessity where such access is not reasonably practical for the reasonable enjoyment of the land. The court held that the standard for an easement by necessity is not absolute or strict impossibility of access but rather a lack of 'reasonably practical access.' In modern times, reliance on roads and automobiles for transporting people and necessities is paramount, and it is a 'pointless fiction' to consider water access a sufficient substitute, especially when weather conditions can render it unusable for significant parts of the year. This aligns Vermont with the modern trend in other jurisdictions and is consistent with the policy of encouraging productive land use. The court reasoned that the common law must evolve to reflect contemporary realities, and today's standards compel the conclusion that water access alone is generally insufficient to defeat a finding of necessity.
Dissenting - Reiber, C.J.
Yes. Access by navigable water should defeat a claim for an easement by necessity, consistent with Vermont's traditionally strict adherence to the necessity standard. The dissent argued that the majority opinion adopts a standard of 'reasonable access' that is far more lenient than Vermont's precedent, which requires more than mere inconvenience to establish necessity. For a seasonal property like the one in question, water access may be entirely reasonable and practical. The bright-line rule created by the majority, which treats water access as inherently insufficient, ignores the serious imposition that granting an uncompensated easement places on the neighboring landowner. The dissent finds the reasoning of courts in Maine and New York, which uphold the water-access exception, to be more persuasive and better balanced with the property rights of the servient estate.
Analysis:
This decision officially aligns Vermont with the modern majority of jurisdictions by rejecting the archaic rule that access to navigable water automatically bars a claim for an easement by necessity. The court clarifies that the 'necessity' standard should be interpreted through a lens of practicality and reasonableness, focusing on whether the owner can reasonably enjoy their land, rather than on a literal interpretation of 'strict necessity.' This precedent makes it easier for owners of water-accessible but otherwise landlocked parcels to secure overland access, reflecting the realities of modern transportation and land use. The case also affirms the principle that common law property doctrines can and should evolve to meet contemporary societal needs.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: David Berge v. State of Vermont (2006)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"