Chandler Flyers, Inc. v. Stellar Development Corp.
121 Ariz. 553, 592 P.2d 387, 1979 Ariz. App. LEXIS 403 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An easement implied by necessity for access to property will only be granted if it is required to provide reasonable access, meaning the land cannot be effectively used without it; merely demonstrating that the property cannot be used for a particular desired purpose without the easement is insufficient.
Facts:
- Stellar Development Corporation is developing a "fly-in" community with an airport, runway, and hangar facilities.
- Chandler Flyers, Inc. owns a commercial parcel of land located within Stellar Development Corporation's project.
- Chandler Flyers wishes to operate a flight school and airplane sales center on its tract.
- Chandler Flyers' tract is adjacent to a public highway, providing access by motor vehicle.
- Chandler Flyers' tract is also adjacent to a small taxiway leading to the development's main runway.
- Deed restrictions and covenants limit the use of that adjacent taxiway to owners of abutting residential properties.
- Chandler Flyers was previously enjoined from utilizing the adjacent taxiway for aircraft access.
Procedural Posture:
- In a related action, Chandler Flyers, Inc. was enjoined from utilizing a specific taxiway, and this injunction became final.
- Chandler Flyers, Inc. subsequently sought an easement of necessity over other land owned by Stellar Development Corporation in a trial court (court of first instance).
- The trial court denied Chandler Flyers, Inc.'s request for such an easement.
- Chandler Flyers, Inc. (appellant) appealed the trial court’s denial of the easement.
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 a property owner seeking to operate a flight school and airplane sales center have a right to an easement implied by necessity for aircraft access to an airport runway when the property already has reasonable access by public highway?
Opinions:
Majority - Schroeder, Presiding Judge
No, a property owner is not entitled to an easement implied by necessity for aircraft access to an airport runway when the property already has reasonable access by public highway, as reasonable use of the property does not inherently require air access. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, stating that the standard for an easement of necessity is whether it is required to provide 'reasonable access' to the property, not absolute necessity. The property already has access via a public highway. While air transportation is becoming more common, the court held it cannot say as a matter of law that a property owner is entitled to aircraft access for reasonable use of their property. There was no evidence that the property 'cannot be effectively used' without air access; rather, the record showed only that it could not be used for Chandler Flyers' particular desired purpose (a flight school and sales center), which is an insufficient showing to justify an easement of necessity. The court cited Solana Land Co. v. Murphey for the reasonable access standard and the Restatement, Property, § 476, for the principle that an easement is implied if 'without it the land cannot be effectively used.'
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the high bar for establishing an easement by necessity, confirming that "reasonable access" does not equate to "access for any desired purpose." It explicitly states that mere commercial inconvenience or the inability to pursue a specialized business venture without a particular type of access is insufficient. The ruling limits the expansion of implied easements to situations where property truly lacks effective utility without the easement, rather than merely lacking optimal or specialized utility, which could impact future land use disputes involving novel transportation methods or specialized commercial needs.
