Fike v. Shelton
860 So. 2d 1227 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An easement by necessity arises by operation of law when a commonly-owned tract of land is severed in a way that landlocks one portion, entitling the owner of the dominant estate to an uncompensated right of way across the servient estate, and this common law right is not defeated by the existence of a permissive, revocable license for access over another's land.
Facts:
- Christiana Sturgis owned a 100-acre tract of land.
- In 1932, the 100-acre tract was partitioned among three heirs, severing it into separate parcels.
- One 20-acre parcel (later acquired by Shelton and referred to as parcel one) became landlocked as a result of the partition, with no access to a public road.
- Another parcel from the partition, a 60-acre tract (now owned by Fike), adjoined the Lebanon-Pine Grove Road, a public road that existed at the time of the partition.
- James B. Shelton, III subsequently purchased the landlocked 20-acre parcel along with an adjacent 20-acre parcel, creating a 40-acre property with no road access.
- Shelton received verbal permission from other neighboring landowners, Robinson and Berry, to cross their properties to reach his land.
- The permission from Robinson was limited to foot travel only, not motorized vehicles.
- The permission from Berry was an oral license, which was revocable at will.
Procedural Posture:
- James B. Shelton, III filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Hinds County against John D. Fike and other parties.
- Shelton petitioned the court to establish an easement by necessity or, alternatively, to order the county board of supervisors to construct a private road.
- The parties agreed to a bifurcated hearing in the chancery court.
- Following the first hearing, the chancellor held that Shelton was entitled to an easement by necessity.
- After a second hearing, the chancellor ordered the easement to be fifty feet wide.
- John D. Fike, the defendant, appealed the chancery court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Mississippi.
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 a landowner entitled to an easement by necessity across an adjacent parcel when both parcels were once part of a commonly-owned tract that was severed, thereby landlocking the landowner's parcel, even if the landowner has permissive, revocable access through other properties?
Opinions:
Majority - Chandler, J.
Yes. A landowner is entitled to an easement by necessity when the elements of common ownership, severance, and strict necessity are met. The court reasoned that an easement by necessity arose by operation of law in 1932 when Christiana Sturgis's property was partitioned, landlocking what is now Shelton's parcel one. The court held that strict necessity was not defeated by the permissive access Shelton had over the Robinson and Berry properties, as this access was a mere license, revocable at will, and did not constitute legally enforceable, unrestricted access. Citing precedent from Broadhead v. Terpening, the court affirmed that the right to an easement by necessity is appurtenant to the land and is considered already paid for when the dominant estate is acquired; therefore, Fike is not entitled to compensation. The court also found the fifty-foot width of the easement reasonable to accommodate both ingress/egress and necessary utilities.
Dissenting - Lee, J.
No. The landowner should be required to use the statutory procedure, which includes compensation, rather than receiving a free easement. The dissent argued that the majority's reliance on Broadhead is misplaced and that the statutory procedure under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 65-7-201 is the proper and exclusive remedy for obtaining a private way. The dissent contended that it is inequitable to burden a subsequent landowner like Fike with an uncompensated easement sixty years after the original severance, resulting in unjust enrichment for Shelton, who purchased the landlocked property at a lower price. This amounts to a taking of Fike's property without due process or just compensation, contrary to the Mississippi Constitution.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction in Mississippi law between a common law easement by necessity and the statutory procedure for obtaining a private road. It clarifies that 'strict necessity' is not defeated by informal, revocable permissions (licenses), thereby strengthening the rights of owners of landlocked parcels whose titles trace back to a common grantor. The ruling reinforces the principle that this common law right runs with the land and requires no new compensation, placing the burden squarely on the servient estate owner, even if that owner is a subsequent purchaser with no connection to the original severance. This precedent may impact title searches and due diligence, as it highlights the existence of unrecorded rights that can encumber a property long after its creation.
