Morrell v. Rice
622 A.2d 1156, 1993 Me. LEXIS 46 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The scope of an easement by necessity is not limited to the uses contemplated at the time of its creation but expands to include all lawful uses for the reasonable enjoyment of the dominant land, including the installation of modern utilities. Such an easement can arise from simultaneous conveyances by a common grantor, which may be inferred from the circumstances even if the deeds have different dates.
Facts:
- The parcels of land now owned by the Morrells and the Rices were originally under the common ownership of the Given family.
- In 1810, the common parcel was severed through an intra-family transaction.
- The deed conveying the future Rice parcel was dated April 7, 1810, and the deed conveying the future Morrell parcel was dated April 24, 1810.
- Both deeds involved multiple members of the Given family as grantors and grantees, and both deeds were acknowledged on the same day, April 24, 1810, before the same notary.
- The severance left the Morrell parcel with no frontage on any public road.
- The only land access to the Morrell parcel is across the Rice parcel.
- The Morrell parcel has frontage on a tidal bay, but access via water is impractical as the water recedes 1,000 yards at low tide and the flats freeze in the winter.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert and Nancy Morrell sued James and Rita Rice in the Superior Court of Cumberland County, Maine, a trial court.
- The Morrells sought a declaratory judgment that their property was benefitted by an easement by necessity over the Rices' land.
- After a nonjury trial, the Superior Court entered a judgment in favor of the Morrells, finding an easement by necessity.
- The trial court's judgment defined the scope of the easement to include the right to install underground utilities but restricted its use to serving only a single-family residence.
- The Rices, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, the state's highest court.
- The Morrells, as appellees, disputed the trial court's restriction on the easement's use on appeal.
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 easement by necessity exist over a servient estate when the deeds severing it from the dominant, landlocked estate were part of an intra-family transaction and acknowledged on the same day, and does the scope of that easement include the right to install underground utilities and serve more than a single-family residence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Clifford
Yes, an easement by necessity exists and its scope includes modern utilities and is not limited to serving a single-family home. The court found that an easement by necessity was created because the circumstances of the 1810 severance strongly implied a simultaneous conveyance by a common grantor. Despite the different dates on the deeds, the fact that it was an intra-family transaction with both deeds acknowledged on the same day before the same notary supported the trial court's finding of a simultaneous conveyance, which serves the public policy against rendering land unfit for use. The court further determined that strict necessity existed because the Morrell parcel was practically landlocked; access by sea was not a reasonable alternative due to extreme tidal shifts and winter freezing. Finally, the court held that the scope of an easement by necessity is not static but evolves with the reasonable needs of the dominant estate. Therefore, the easement includes the right to install underground utilities, which are essential for modern land use, and should not be restricted to serving only a single-family residence, as it must accommodate any lawful and reasonable use of the property.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies two aspects of easements by necessity. First, it establishes that a 'simultaneous conveyance' can be inferred from the totality of circumstances, such as a close temporal proximity of deeds, a common notary acknowledgment date, and an intra-family context, rather than requiring identical deed dates. Second, and more importantly, it modernizes the doctrine by defining the scope of the easement not by the standards of the time of creation (1810), but by the present and future reasonable needs of the dominant estate. This precedent ensures that ancient easements remain practical and valuable by allowing for modern uses like utilities, thereby preventing land from becoming unusable due to outdated interpretations of property rights.
