Crone v. Brumley
219 S.W.3d 65, 2006 WL 3369962 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish an easement by necessity, the party seeking the easement must prove a strict necessity for access, not merely a convenience. The existence of any other legal access to the property, even if it is difficult or impractical to use, will defeat a claim for an easement by necessity.
Facts:
- In 1920, Abb Rose owned a single large tract of land and severed it, conveying the southern portion to his son, Pat, while retaining the northern portion which abutted a public road (now Highway 277/377).
- In 1923, Pat conveyed the northern portion of his tract to E.S. DeLoach, creating a parcel (now the Brumley Ranch) that was surrounded by land owned by Abb, Pat, and third parties, with no immediate access to a public road.
- The Brumleys eventually acquired the DeLoach property, and Sandra Crone, Pat's granddaughter, acquired the property to the south (Sycamore Ranch).
- For years, the Brumleys and their lessees used a private road across Crone's Sycamore Ranch with her permission.
- After experiencing property damage, theft, and missing livestock attributed to the Brumleys' hunters, Crone locked the gate on the road, restricting access across her property.
Procedural Posture:
- Acton Brumley and Mary Brumley sued Sandra Crone in a Texas trial court, seeking to establish an easement by necessity across Crone's property.
- The case was tried before a jury, which found in favor of the Brumleys.
- The jury found that access across Crone's property was necessary both at the time of the 1923 severance and at the time of the trial.
- Based on the jury's verdict, the trial court entered a judgment awarding the Brumleys an easement by necessity across Crone's property.
- Sandra Crone (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, with the Brumleys as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's finding that an easement by necessity exists across Crone's property for the benefit of the Brumleys' property, where an alternative, albeit more difficult, legal access route exists?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Sarah B. Duncan
No. The evidence is legally insufficient to support the finding of an easement by necessity because the Brumleys failed to prove that access across Crone's land was strictly necessary. To establish an easement by necessity, a party must prove (1) prior unity of ownership, (2) the access is a necessity and not a mere convenience, and (3) the necessity existed at the time of the severance of the estates. The court reasoned that the critical severance was in 1920 when Abb conveyed land to Pat, which created a landlocked parcel. At that moment, an easement by necessity was impliedly created going north over Abb's remaining land to the public highway. This legal right of access passed down to subsequent owners, including the Brumleys. Since a legal northern access route exists, the southern route across Crone's land cannot be a 'necessity.' The fact that the northern route is difficult and requires a four-wheel-drive vehicle amounts to an inconvenience, which is insufficient to establish the strict necessity required by law.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the stringent 'strict necessity' standard for implied easements by necessity in Texas. It clarifies that the historical chain of title is critical, as the court will trace the easement back to the original severance that created the landlocked parcel. The case serves as a strong precedent that mere inconvenience, even significant difficulty of access, does not satisfy the legal requirement of necessity. This holding makes it substantially more difficult for landowners to establish easements by necessity if any alternative, however impractical, legal access exists.
Unlock the full brief for Crone v. Brumley