Othen v. Rosier

Supreme Court of Texas
226 S.W.2d 622 (1950)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An easement by necessity requires proof that the necessity for the easement existed at the exact time the dominant and servient estates were severed from a common owner. An easement by prescription cannot be established if the use of the roadway was permissive, which is presumed when the owner of the land also uses the roadway along with the claimant.

Facts:

A single owner, Hill, owned a large 2,493-acre tract of land called the Tone Survey.
In 1896, Hill sold a 100-acre tract to Rosier's predecessor in title, which abutted the public Belt Line Road.
In 1897, Hill sold a 60-acre tract to Othen's predecessor, and in 1899, sold a 53-acre tract to Othen's predecessor. These combined tracts owned by Othen were landlocked.
In 1899, Hill sold a 16.31-acre tract to Rosier's predecessor, which was situated between Othen's land and Rosier's 100-acre tract.
Othen and his predecessors used a lane across Rosier's property to access the Belt Line Road.
The Rosiers and their tenants also regularly used the same lane for their own farm purposes, such as moving livestock and hauling wood.
Around 1906, the lane was fenced on both sides and a gate was installed, which both parties used.
The Rosiers constructed a levee to control water drainage, which impounded water in the lane and made it impassable for Othen.

Procedural Posture:

Albert Othen filed suit against Estella Rosier et al. in a Texas trial court, seeking an injunction and enforcement of a roadway easement.
The trial court found that Othen had an easement of necessity and ordered the Rosiers to make the roadway usable again.
The Rosiers, as appellants, appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals.
The Court of Civil Appeals first affirmed the easement but reversed the injunction order.
On rehearing, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed its prior holding and rendered judgment for the Rosiers, finding no easement existed.
Othen, as petitioner, appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas.

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 have an easement by necessity or by prescription across an adjacent property when the necessity was not proven to exist at the time the properties were severed from a common owner, and the subsequent use of the path was shared with the property owner?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Justice Brewster

No. A landowner does not have an easement by necessity or prescription under these circumstances. For an easement by necessity, the claimant must prove that the necessity existed at the time of the severance of the estates from a common owner. Othen failed to meet this burden because he did not prove that, at the time Hill sold the 100-acre tract in 1896, a path across that land was the only possible outlet to a public road. The record did not exclude the possibility that Hill could have accessed a public road over other lands he still owned at that time. Regarding the claim for a prescriptive easement, the use must be adverse, not permissive. Here, the Rosiers also used the lane, which gives rise to a presumption that Othen's use was merely permissive. The use of a way over the land of another when the owner is also using the same is not considered adverse possession because it is not inconsistent with a license from the owner. Therefore, Othen's use was a permissive license that could not ripen into a prescriptive right.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the strict requirements for establishing easements by necessity and prescription in Texas. It underscores that for an easement by necessity, the critical moment of proof is the time of severance, not the present-day situation. For prescriptive easements, the case establishes a strong presumption that joint use of a path by the landowner and the claimant is permissive, not adverse, making it significantly harder for claimants to succeed in such situations. This ruling reinforces the rights of property owners against implied or long-term use claims that lack clear proof of either strict necessity at severance or hostile, adverse use.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Othen v. Rosier (1950)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature