Mobile Motivations, Inc. v. Lenches
26 A.D.3d 568, 809 N.Y.S.2d 253 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An easement by implication arises when, after the severance of a unified title, a pre-existing, obvious servitude on one part of the estate is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the other. An easement by necessity arises when the severance of a unified title renders a parcel landlocked.
Facts:
- Prior to 1989, a single entity, Kallman Realty, held unified title to two adjacent parcels of land.
- In 1989, while Kallman Realty still owned the entire property, a new house was constructed on what would become defendant Randhir Jhamb's parcel.
- During construction, a new driveway was created across the adjoining parcel (now plaintiff's) to provide access to the new house.
- The original driveway, which connected to a deeded right-of-way, was rendered unusable because a septic system for the new house had to be constructed over it.
- The use of the new driveway by the original builder, Jay Kallman, was with the permission of his brother, the owner of Kallman Realty.
- In April 1990, Kallman Realty severed the property, transferring the parcel with the new house to Jay Kallman.
- The parcel was later foreclosed upon and eventually deeded to defendant Randhir Jhamb in June 1998.
- Without access to the new driveway, Jhamb's parcel would be landlocked.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed an action in the Supreme Court of Greene County, New York (a trial-level court) seeking to enjoin Randhir Jhamb from using a driveway on their property.
- Jhamb answered and counterclaimed, asserting he had acquired an easement by necessity, prescription, and/or implication.
- Following a nonjury trial, the Supreme Court entered a judgment in favor of Jhamb, finding he had established an easement.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division (an intermediate appellate 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 a landowner acquire an easement over an adjacent parcel by prescription, implication, or necessity when the parcels were once under common ownership and a newly constructed driveway became the sole means of access after a deeded right-of-way was rendered unusable?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, J.
Yes, a landowner acquires an easement by implication and by necessity, but not by prescription. A prescriptive easement was not established because the use of the driveway was not adverse; the original user, Jay Kallman, had permission from his brother, the owner of the servient estate. The use was also not uninterrupted, as the property was in foreclosure for a period. However, an easement by implication was established because the parcels were once under unified title, and the new driveway was a permanent and obvious servitude imposed on one parcel for the benefit of the other before severance, which was reasonably necessary for its fair enjoyment. Furthermore, an easement by necessity was proven because the original deeded right-of-way became unusable due to the septic system's construction, rendering the defendant's parcel landlocked without the new driveway.
Analysis:
This decision effectively illustrates the distinct requirements for different types of unwritten easements. It clarifies that a single set of facts can support easements by implication and necessity while failing to meet the 'adverse use' element crucial for a prescriptive easement. The case reinforces that permissive use is the antithesis of the hostile claim required for prescription. It also establishes that an easement by necessity can be created not just by a lack of any access, but when a previously deeded right-of-way is rendered permanently unusable by necessary changes to the property.
