Lexplug logoLexplug

Schwab v. Timmons

Supreme Court of Wisconsin
589 N.W.2d 1 (1999) 224 Wis.2d 27 (1999)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An easement by necessity is not created when a property owner voluntarily severs and conveys away the portion of their land that provides access to a public roadway, thereby landlocking their remaining parcel. The necessity for the easement must exist at the moment of severance by the common grantor, not be created by the subsequent actions of a grantee.


Facts:

  • Prior to 1854, the United States government was the common owner of three adjacent lots (Lots 2, 3, and 4) located between Green Bay and a high bluff.
  • In 1854, the United States granted Lot 4 to Ingebret Torgerson, and in 1882, it granted Lots 2 and 3 to Halvor Anderson.
  • At the time of these conveyances, all lots extended east of the bluff and had access to a public roadway from the land above the bluff; no parcels were landlocked.
  • The petitioners, James and Katherine Schwab and Dorice McCormick, eventually acquired parcels within Lot 2 that originally extended from the water to the land above the bluff, including access to the public roadway.
  • Sometime after acquiring their properties, the Schwabs and McCormick conveyed away the portions of their land located above the bluff.
  • This act of conveying away their road access left the petitioners' remaining parcels landlocked, situated between the waters of Green Bay and the bluff, with no road access.
  • The petitioners sought access across the properties of the respondents, which are located to their south, via a private road.
  • Negotiations with the respondents to extend and use the private road failed.

Procedural Posture:

  • The petitioners (Schwab and McCormick) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Door County Circuit Court, the court of first instance, seeking an easement over the respondents' properties.
  • The respondents filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
  • The circuit court treated the motions as motions for summary judgment and granted them in favor of the respondents, dismissing the petitioners' action.
  • The petitioners, as appellants, appealed the circuit court's decision to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
  • The court of appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the circuit court's dismissal.
  • The petitioners then sought review from the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, the state's highest court.

Locked

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 arise when a property owner's parcel becomes landlocked not at the moment of severance by a common grantor, but by the owner's own subsequent action of conveying away the portion of their land that had access to a public road?


Opinions:

Majority - Wilcox, J.

No, an easement by necessity does not arise under these circumstances. To establish an easement by necessity, the party must show that a common owner severed a landlocked portion of property, creating the necessity at the moment of severance. Here, the common owner, the United States, did not sever a landlocked parcel; the parcels had access to a public road when conveyed in the 19th century. The petitioners created their own landlocked situation by voluntarily conveying away their highway access. The law will not recognize a way of necessity for a grantor who creates their own lack of access. Furthermore, mere inconvenience or the high cost of creating access over a geographical barrier, such as the bluff, does not establish the strict necessity required for such an easement. The court refused to expand the common law to create 'hidden easements' that would undermine the public policy favoring reliance on recorded land titles.



Analysis:

This case strongly reaffirms the strict requirements for creating an easement by necessity, emphasizing that the necessity must exist at the time a common grantor severs the property. The decision establishes a clear precedent in Wisconsin that property owners cannot landlock themselves by selling their access and then burden neighboring properties by claiming an easement. It prioritizes the stability and certainty of public land records over the development of parcels that become inaccessible due to the owner's own actions, thereby protecting bona fide purchasers from unrecorded, 'hidden' encumbrances.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Schwab v. Timmons (1999) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Schwab v. Timmons