Ward v. Slavecek

Court of Appeals of Texas
1971 Tex. App. LEXIS 2638, 466 S.W.2d 91 (1971)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An implied easement requires a showing of strict necessity for the use of the dominant estate. If other reasonable means of access to the property exist, an implied easement will not be found.

Facts:

Before 1919, a common owner of two adjacent lots built a single driveway centered on the property line to serve a garage.
In 1925, the common owner sold one lot to Plaintiff's predecessor in title.
In 1928, the common owner sold the adjacent lot to Defendant's predecessor in title, who then built a garage and began using the shared driveway with the neighbor's consent.
The driveway was used in common by the owners of both lots for over four decades, until 1970.
In 1970, Defendants built a metal fence on their property, dividing the driveway and allegedly preventing Plaintiff from using it to access her garage.
Plaintiff's lot has access to an open, usable alley at its rear (west) end.
A clear space of 9 to 9.5 feet exists between the new fence and Plaintiff's house, which is sufficient for automobile access from the street to the garage.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff sued Defendants in a Texas trial court, seeking recognition of an implied easement.
The case was tried before a judge without a jury (a bench trial).
The trial court ruled in favor of the Defendants, issuing a take-nothing judgment against the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Civil Appeals.

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 implied easement exist over a shared driveway when the owner of the dominant estate has alternative means of access to their property, such as an alley or sufficient side-yard clearance?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Wilson

No. An implied easement does not exist because the plaintiff failed to establish the element of strict necessity. For an easement to be implied by law, it must be strictly necessary for the use and enjoyment of the dominant estate. The court found that strict necessity was not met here because the plaintiff had two other viable means of accessing her garage: an open alley at the rear of the property and a 9-9.5 foot clearance between her house and the new fence, which was wide enough for a car. The existence of these alternative access routes, as found by the trial court, defeats the claim that the shared driveway was strictly necessary.

Analysis:

This decision reaffirms the high bar of 'strict necessity' required for establishing an implied easement in property law. It clarifies that the standard is not one of convenience but of absolute need. The ruling demonstrates that courts will conduct a fact-intensive inquiry into the availability of any alternative access routes, and the existence of a reasonably viable alternative will defeat a claim for an implied easement. This precedent makes it more difficult for property owners to claim rights over neighboring land based on prior use alone, emphasizing the importance of express, written easements.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Ward v. Slavecek (1971)

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

Premium Feature