Traders, Inc. v. Bartholomew
1983 Vt. LEXIS 427, 142 Vt. 486, 459 A.2d 974 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An easement by necessity, created when a severance of commonly owned land results in a landlocked parcel, is not limited by prior use but has a scope sufficient for the dominant owner to have reasonable enjoyment of the land for all lawful present and future purposes, balanced against the rights of the servient estate.
Facts:
- Prior to 1931, a single owner held three parcels of land: two northern parcels and a 121-acre southern parcel.
- In 1931, a mortgage foreclosure severed the two northern parcels from the southern parcel.
- This severance by foreclosure left the 121-acre southern parcel completely landlocked, without access to any public road.
- In 1944, the Bartholomews acquired ownership of the two northern parcels, which surrounded the landlocked parcel.
- From 1943 to 1976, the owners of the 121-acre parcel used a path across the Bartholomews' land for access to a small dwelling house and for light agricultural purposes.
- In 1973, the Bartholomews constructed a gate at the westernmost point of the path, blocking access.
- In 1976, Traders, Inc. acquired ownership of the 121-acre landlocked parcel.
Procedural Posture:
- Traders, Inc. (Plaintiff) commenced a declaratory judgment action in Rutland Superior Court (trial court) against the Bartholomews (Defendants).
- The trial court found that a town highway had been properly discontinued.
- The trial court also found that Plaintiff had a prescriptive easement, but its scope was limited by past use to a driveway for a single dwelling and agricultural uses.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's ruling on the limited scope of the easement to this 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 the scope of a way of necessity, created when a severance of commonly owned land results in a landlocked parcel, expand to meet the reasonable present and future needs of the landlocked property?
Opinions:
Majority - Billings, J.
Yes. The scope of a way of necessity is not limited by historical use but is coextensive with the reasonable present and future needs for the enjoyment of the dominant estate. The court reasoned that a way of necessity is distinct from an easement by implication or prescription, as it is based on the public policy against leaving land inaccessible and unproductive. Unlike an implied easement, which is limited to the use at the time of severance, a way of necessity's scope should be sufficient for the dominant owner's reasonable enjoyment of the land for all lawful purposes. This expansive scope, however, must be balanced against the reasonable use of the servient estate, and the dominant owner may be required to bear the costs associated with any enlargement of the easement.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies and clarifies the distinction between a way of necessity and other types of easements, such as those by implication or prescription, under Vermont law. It establishes that the scope of a way of necessity is dynamic and can evolve with the needs of the dominant estate, which strongly favors the development of landlocked parcels. By introducing a balancing test and the possibility of cost-sharing for improvements, the court provides a framework for resolving future disputes that protects the interests of both the dominant and servient landowners. This precedent will likely encourage the productive use of otherwise isolated properties while ensuring that the burden on servient estates does not become unreasonable.
