Dupont v. Whiteside
721 So. 2d 1259, 1998 WL 890209 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An implied easement by way of necessity requires absolute necessity, meaning the property is otherwise landlocked. The easement will not be granted if the property has legal access to a public road, even if reaching a specific portion of the property from that road is difficult, impractical, or expensive due to natural obstacles.
Facts:
- In 1980, C.E. and Joyce Dupont agreed to sell a 32-acre parcel of land to Carl and Leona Whiteside.
- The parcel fronted the St. Johns River on one end and a public road on the other, but the two ends were separated by wetlands situated on the parcel itself.
- The Whitesides informed the Duponts they planned to build on the riverfront portion and were concerned about access.
- Before the sale closed, Mr. Dupont built a road across his own retained property that provided direct access to the Whitesides' intended homesite.
- The deed of conveyance for the property did not contain any grant of easement for the road.
- In 1981, the Whitesides constructed a home valued at approximately $240,000 on the riverfront portion of their property.
- For approximately 14 years, the Whitesides used the road across the Duponts' land as the sole access to their home.
- In July 1994, Mr. Dupont objected to the Whitesides' continued use of the roadway and gave them 60 days to establish alternative access.
Procedural Posture:
- The Duponts filed a lawsuit in a Florida trial court to enjoin the Whitesides from using the roadway on the Duponts' property.
- The Whitesides filed a counterclaim seeking an irrevocable license or, in the alternative, an implied easement by way of necessity.
- The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of the Whitesides, granting them an implied way of necessity easement over the existing roadway.
- The Duponts, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
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 an implied easement by way of necessity arise over a grantor's land when the grantee's property has access to a public road, but the intended homesite on the parcel is separated from that road by extensive wetlands located on the grantee's own land?
Opinions:
Majority - Cobb, J.
No. An implied easement by way of necessity requires absolute necessity, which exists only when a parcel is landlocked. The court held that since the Whitesides' property abuts a public road, it is not landlocked, and thus the legal requirement of absolute necessity established by precedent like Tortoise Island Communities, Inc. v. Moorings Association, Inc. is not met. The difficulty and expense of building a road across their own wetlands to reach their homesite constitutes an inconvenience, not a legal necessity. The court reasoned that the common law principle of an implied grant of necessity is not implicated when a parcel is not landlocked. Furthermore, an oral promise for access cannot create an enforceable easement due to the Statute of Frauds. The court reversed the trial court's grant of an easement but remanded the case for consideration of whether the Whitesides may have an irrevocable license based on their substantial expenditures in reliance on the Duponts' promise of access.
Dissenting - Harris, J.
Yes. The easement granted by the trial court is a true necessity because the only alternative route is not reasonable or practicable. The dissent argued that the immense practical, environmental, and financial difficulty of building a road through 700 feet of protected wetlands renders the alternative access unreasonable and impracticable. This extreme difficulty elevates the situation from mere inconvenience to the level of absolute necessity required by law, making the easement over the Duponts' land essential for the beneficial use of the property as intended by the parties. Therefore, the trial court's judgment should have been affirmed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the stringent "absolute necessity" standard for implied easements by way of necessity in Florida, reaffirming that the necessity must relate to the entire parcel being landlocked, not just a portion of it being difficult to access. The decision reinforces the high bar for creating property rights by implication and highlights the critical distinction between legal necessity (being landlocked) and practical difficulty (cost or obstacles). By remanding on the irrevocable license issue, the court directs parties with similar reliance-based claims toward an equitable remedy that focuses on detrimental reliance and expenditures, rather than the physical characteristics of the land.
