easement by necessity

easement by necessity

The legal ability of a property owner to use a right-of-way over the lands of another because the owner's property is landlocked and has no direct access to any public roads. Generally,the right-of-way must be a route that places the least burden on the other property,even if it is inconvenient for the landlocked property owner.See easement.

References in periodicals archive ?
On the undisputed facts, as a matter of law, the express right of way easement does not include a right to park, and Janice's land is registered, so no rights of adverse possession, easement by necessity, or prescriptive easement have or can accrue.
Unlike an easement by necessity (discussed infra), however, there is no requirement that continuing necessity be demonstrated.
Another method of creation all states have in common is the easement by necessity. The authors could not locate a case in Georgia that recognizes a common law easement of necessity.
An easement by necessity can be created if it is absolutely necessary to cross somebody's land for a legitimate purpose.
1990) ("An easement by necessity, however, rests not on a preexisting use, but on the need for the way for the beneficial use of the property after conveyance").
But Wright sided with Plumlee and blasted Culbreath for being part of the problem in not gaining access to his land, even though a Arkansas Court of Appeals decision says he has an easement by necessity.
Where a landlocked property holds limited value compared to comparable parcels with access or road frontage, the tax court has found value where the taxpayer had a right to an easement by necessity. "At common law an easement is defined as a nonpossessory incorporeal interest in another's possessory estate in land, entitling the holder of the easement to make some use of the other's property."
In 2005, after trying again unsuccessfully to negotiate easements, the Ruvalcabas sued the owners to the north and sought to establish an implied easement by necessity across their properties.
The Ruvalcabas also asked the court to declare that access across the severed parcel was unreasonable or, alternatively, that there was an implied easement by necessity over the severed parcel into what now constitutes the Kitchins' property.