1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r:

____

____ ____ ___ 3 Fi lin g D at e: N ove m be r 14, 201 6 4 N O. 32, 241 5 ROB ERT CIOL LI and 6 M A R Y LO U C IO LL I, 7 Pl ai nti ff

s- A ppe lle es , 8 v

. 9 McFARLAND LAND & 10 CATTLE COMPANY, INC., 11 D ef

en da nt- A ppe llant. 12 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF QU AYCO UN TY 13 Ga ry C lin gm an , D ist ri ctJu dg e , by d es ign at ion 14 Cu dd y

& McC art hy, L LP 15 Ja cque ly

n A rc hul et a- St ae hli n 16 Ch ar lot te H

. H ethe ri ngt on 17 San ta Fe, NM 18 for Appellees 19 Sch ut te Law Offic e, LLC 20 D ona ld C

. S ch utt e 21 Tuc um cari , NM 22 fo r A ppe llant1 OPIN ION

2 KEN NED Y, Judge. 3 { 1} Pl ai nti ff

s, ow ne rs of

aland lo ck ed

r an chin Q ua y

Co unty , sue d a n a dj ac en t 4 ranc h to co m

pe l the r ec ogni tio n of

a n e as em en t a cr oss tha t r an chto the pub lic 5 hig hw ay . T he dis tr ic t cour t e nte re d aj udgm en t r ec ogni zi ng an im pli ed e as em en t by 6 ne ce ssi ty

f or the be ne fi t of

P la int if fs ’ r an ch

. D ef

en da nt a ppe al ed . We affirm

the 7 dis tr ic t c ourt. 8 I. BACKGRO UND 9 A . In tr od uc ti on 10 { 2} T he dis put e in this ca se is o ve r w he the r the Ci oll i R an ch , ow ne d by P la int if fs , 11 Ro be rt a nd M ar

y L ou C iol li (the Ci oll is) , is en tit le d to a n e as em en t a cr oss the 12 McFar land Ranch, ow ned by De fendant McFar land Land & Ca t tle Co., Inc. 13 (McF arland L and). The dis trict cou rt in itially concluded that the Ciollis we re e ntitled 14 to an easem ent. F or rea sons best left to our previous order in this case, we rever sed 15 an d r em an de d f

or f urthe r cl ar if

ic at ionby the dis tr ic t c ourt as to how the his tor y of the 16 tw o r an ch es m igh t c om e to s uppo rt r ec ogni zi ng a

ty pe of e as em en t tha t i s c ogni za

ble 17 un de r ou r la w. 18 { 3} Fo llo w ing r em an d a nd a he ar ing on c om

pe tin g su m

m ar y j u d g m e n t m o t i o n s , the 19 district c ourt ( with a differe nt j udge) set out what it considered w ere und isput ed2

1 fi ndi ngs of

f ac t and c onc lus ion s of

law f oll ow ed by an or de r gr an tin g th e Ci oll is’ 2 m oti on f

or sum m ar y j udgm en t, r ec ogni zi ng the ex ist en ce of an im pli ed e as em en t by 3 ne ce ssi ty

a cr oss the Mc Fa

rl an d R an ch be ing appur

te na nt t o a nd f

or the be ne fi t of

the 4 Ci o l l i R a n c h a s t h e d o m i n an tes t at e. Mc Fa rl an dLa n dap p ea l ed t h i s ju d g m en t . We 5 or de re d th e pa rt ie s to br ie f the iss ue s as r ef le ct ed in the la te st j udgm en t e nte re d by the 6 di st ric t co ur t fo r ou r co ns id erat io n o n t he m eri ts

. 7 B. Fact s 8 { 4} The f

acts are undi sputed by the parties. Prior to 1970, Benton Hodges owned 9 both w ha t are nowr ef er re d to in thi s c ase as th e Mc Farl an d R an cha nd the Ci oll i 10 Ranc h a s po rt ion s of

one pa rc el of

land. Be fo re the tw o r an ch es w er e se ve re d a nd 11 sold, the larger parcel of land a butted a pub lic road—QR 46—on its sou thern end. In 12 1970 H odge s so ld w ha t i s no w the Mc Farl an d R an chto Sh ine Mc Farl an d and 13 re ta ine d th e re m ai nin g parc el of la nd, inc lud ing the portio n no w kno w n a s th e Ci oll i 14 Ranch. The newMcFarland Ranch (and now owned by McFarland Land) still abu tted 15 Q R 4 6 onit s so uth er

n e nd. 16 { 5} T he 1970 w ar

ranty de ed fr om H odge s to Shin e Mc Farl an d a nd h is w if e did not 17 re se rv e ane as em en t a cr oss the Mc Farl an d R an chto the c ounty ro ad

. A ft er 197 0, 18 H odge s a cc es se d w ha t i s no w the Ci oll i R an ch thr ough its northe as t c or ne r fr om S ta te 19 H igh w ay 278, en te ri ng his pr ope rty by cr oss ing the pr ope rty of ot he r landow ne rs .18 W e obse rv e m entio n m ad e of a nothe r ro ute , nowblo ck ed , to the H odge s’ 1 19 property

through the p ro p er t y of another land owner identified in the record a s 20 “ Beck” w ho is no t a party to this case. 3 1 This ro u t e is known as the “ La tham Route.” Shine McFar land thereafter leased 2 H odge s’ pr ope rty

f or ape ri od of tim e, gr az ing his (and ap pa re ntl y H odge s’ ) co w s on 3 w ha t i s no w the Ci oll i R an ch

. S hin e Mc Farl an d acc es se d H odge s’ r an chusi ng the 4 L atha m

Ro ute f ro m Sta te Highw ay

278 thr oughthe northe as t c or ne r of H odge s’ 5 pr ope rty . A ft er

te ndi ng t o hi s c at tle , S hin e Mc Farl an d w oul d th en pa ss s outh th ro ugh 6 the present Ciolli Ranch onto and across the McFarland Ranch at its eastern border, 7 ex iti ng t o Q R 4 6 vi a w ha t ha s si nc e be co m e know n a s th e “ feed ro ad” o n th e 8 Mc Farl an d Ran ch

. T he use of S ta te H igh w ay

278 to ac ce ss w ha t i s no w the Ci oll i 9 Ranc h vi a the L atha m Ro ute by H odge s, Sh ine Mc Farl an d, or both, c ont inu ed

f ro m 10 the e ar ly

196 0s thr oughthe la te 197 0s. Mc Farl an d L an d a cknow le dge s th at the 11 L atha m Ro ute is n owim pa ssa ble

. T he dis tr ic t c ourt f

ound tha t a t so m e tim e pr ior

to 1 12 1997 , pe rm iss ion to use the L atha m Ro ute w as w ith dr aw n by oth er pe rs ons than th e 13 pa rties t o th is s uit

a nd tha t the r out e w as “ ga te d, loc ke d a nd c los ed a s am eans t o 14 acce ss the Ciolli Ranch.” 15 { 6} In198 0 S hin e Mc Farl an d f ile d aqui et

ti tle sui t e nc om

pa ssi ng the pa rc el of

the 16 Mc Farl an d R an chw here th e fe ed r oa d is loc at ed

. T he c ourt qu ie te d ti tle to the 17 McF arl an d R an ch in fav orof S hi ne McFa rla nd an d a ga in st all na m ed an d u nk no wn4

1 clai m an t s, including Hodges’ heirs. While the judgm ent quieted titl e in R. M. 2 McF arl an d a nd Els ie S. McFa r l a n d , bar rin g a nd est op pi ng all na m edan d u nk no wn 3 cl ai m an ts, inc lud ingJ am e s R ay H o d g e s an d

N anc y H odge s a s na m ed

de fe ndants f

ro m 4 ha vin g or cl ai m ing an y “ ri ght , tit le or int er es t i n or li enupo n” the Mc Farl an d R an ch , 5 the sui t di d no t sp ec if

ic al ly c onc er n any poss ibl e ea se m en ts o r oth er r igh ts o f ac ce ss 6 fr om the H odge s’ pr ope rty

sou th thr oughthe Mc Farl an d R an chto Q R 4 6. 7 { 7} In199 3, w ha t is nowthe Ci oll i R an ch , w as pur ch as ed f ro m he ir s of the 8 Hodges. S ince 1997 access for the Ciollis to their ranch has been solely by the fee d 9 ro ad , by

pe rm iss ionof

Mc Farl an d L an d, w ho h ad no l eg al obl iga tio n to pr ovi de it , 10 thou gh perm issio n to use the road has never been withdraw n by McFar land Land. In 11 1997 t h e ra n ch wa s sold to the Ciollis. A m ap given to th e Ciollis by their seller 12 dir ec te d th em to use the f ee d r oa d a cr oss the Mc Farl an d R an chf or a cc es s. W ith out 13 an eas em en t, t he Cio ll is ha ve no leg al ly enfo rceabl e acc es s t o t he ir r an ch

. 14 { 8} T he Ci oll is r eque ste d aw ri tte n e as em en t fo r th e fe ed r oa d f ro m S hin e 15 Mc Farl an d in 2003 , be ca use the Ci oll is w er e se lli ng the ir pr ope rty a nd c oul d no t do 16 so w ith out

aw ri tte n e as em en t of

r ec or d. Mc Farl an d L an d r ef use d a nd t old

the Ci oll is 1 7 t h at i two u l dn o tg i v e a “ wr i t t en ea s emen t ” a n dt h at “ ev er ybo d y u s es ev er ybo d y el s e’s 18 pr ope rty . ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt f ound th at “ [w ] ith out

ale ga lly e nf or ce ab le r igh t of 19 acce ss, the Ciolli Ranch is unusab le and unsaleable.”14 Mc Farl an d Land stood on the qua lity of it s w or d th at

pe rm iss ionf

or the Ci oll i 2 15 Ranc h w oul d no t be r ev oke d by th em . Ev en assum ing the ir goo d w ill , the dur at ion 16 of suc h apr om ise c an not

be inf ini te , nor is it ir re voc ab le

. T he la ck

of ir re voc ab ili ty 17 fo r such a pr om ise —part ic ularl y to en ab le it s e nf

or ce m en t by

the Ci oll is o r the ir 18 successors as to McFar land Land or its successo rs wi t h re gard to the feed 19 ro ad —w oul d r equir e a re co rd ed eas em en t. A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt no te d inthe f ir st 20 pr oc ee din gs, ti m es a re c ha ngi ng, as pr ove n by the fa ct tha t w ith out the ir re voc ab ili ty 21 of a n eas em en t granti ng ac ce ss for the Ci oll i Ra nc h to the sol e av ai la ble pub lic r oa d, 22 the Ciolli Ranch was not able to be sold. T h i s, plus the fulfillm ent of the legal 23 el em en ts f

or a n e as em en t by

ne ce ssi ty , c om

bin e to p ro vid e the w ei ght of ine vit ab ili ty 2 4 t o o u r r u l i n g t o d a y. 5 1 C. Trial, R eversal, and Re m and 2 { 9} In201 1 th e Ci oll is f ile d this ac tio n se ek ing apr es cr ipt ive e as em en t or , in the 3 al te rn at ive , a“ pr iva te im pli ed e as em en t” ac ro ss the Mc Farl an d R an ch

. F oll ow ing a 4 tr ia l on th e m er its , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound c le ar a nd c onvi nc ing e vid en ce tha t the 5 Ci oll is’ pe rm iss ive r igh t t o c ro ss the Mc Farl an d Ran ch ha s neve r be enin dis put e. T he 6 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ion s st at ed tha t the w or d of

Mc Farl an d L an d w as m or e bin din g 7 than any

wr itten contract, but also concluded th at, “ in tod ay ’ s world[, ] a w ritten 8 ea se m en t i s r equir ed

. ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed tha t the use of

the r oa d “ is a 2 9 re as ona

ble , li m ite d e as em en t base d upon hi sto ri ca l ne ed s a nd u sa ge a s te sti fi ed to by 10 both [the Ciollis’ ] witnesses and [McF arland L and’ s] witnesses.” 11 { 10} W ith out re la tin g the m eanin g of “ re as ona ble , lim ite d eas em en t” to the ty pe s of 12 ea se m en ts the Ci oll is s ough t in the ir co m pla int , the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed tha t the use 13 of the r oa d is a n ap purte na nt e as em en t c ro ssi ng o ne se ct ionof the Mc Farl an d R an ch

.6

1 H av ing f

ound tha t an ea se m en t ex ist ed , the dis tr ic t co urt or de re d a n e as em en t t o be 2 dr af te d a nd fil ed as pa rt

of it s j udgm en t. Mc Farl an d L an d a ppe al ed the j udgm en t t o 3 thi s C ourt. Be ca

use w e be lie ve d th at

ne ith er the fi ndi ngs by the dis tr ic t co urt no r its 4 j udgm en t w er e suf

fi ci en t t o e sta

bli sh an e as em en t un de r la w , w e rev ers ed the 5 j udgm en t and r em an de d for fu rthe r pr oc ee din gs to clari fy the sta tus of

the pa rt ie s a nd 6 the ir pr ope rt ie s. 7 1. Pr oceedin gs on Rem and 8 { 11} O n r em an d, the pa rt ie s f ile d c om pe tin g m oti ons fo r sum

m ar y j udgm en t, in 9 which the Ciollis re quested the recognitio n of an easem ent by necessity and to which 1 0 M c F a r l a n d L a n d r e s p o n d e d

. T h e p a rt i e s f i l e d r e q u e s t e d f

i n d i n g s o f fa ct a nd 11 conclusio ns of law. The district c ourt e ntered finding s of fac t and conclusi ons of law 12 but r ec ognizin g th at the Ci oll i R an chis la ndl oc ke d a s ar es ult of H odge s’ pa rt iti on 13 of his land and tha t the se c ir cu m stanc es r equir ed “ [a ] n e as em en t of

ne ce ssi ty [ tha t] 14 ex ist s f

ro m the ne ar es t pu

bli c ro adw ay (Q R 46) ac ro ss the Mc Farl an d Ranc h vi a the 15 [f ] ee d [ r] oa d to the Ci oll i R an ch

. ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt declar ed suc h a n e as em en t t o 16 ex ist f or the be ne fi t of

, a nd a ppurt en an t to, the Ci oll i R an cha s th e dom inant e sta te 17 ru lin g th at

“ [t ] he Mc Farl an d R an ch , the se rv ie nt e sta te , is bu rden ed by sa id 18 eas em en t.”7

1 II. DISC US SION 2 { 12} “ Fewthing s are a s cer t ai n as death, ta xes and the legal entanglem ent that 3 follows a sale of landlocked real estate. ” Bob D aniel s & Sons v. W

eaver , 681 P

. 2d 4 1010 , 1013 (Idaho Ct. App. 1984 ). Th e re cord below dem onstrates that sub stantial 5 ev ide nc e ex ist s to sup por t the und isp ute d f

ac ts f ound by the dis tr ic t co urt onr em an d 6 an d th at

the y co nst itu te cl ear an d conv inc ing ev ide nc e tha t an ea se m en t by ne ce ssi ty 7 is pr ope r. “ If the fa ct s ar e undi sput ed an d onl y a le ga l int er pr et at io n o f th e fac ts 8 rem ains, summ ary j udgm ent is the a ppropriate rem edy .” B d. of Ct y. Co m m ’r

s v . R isk 9 Mgm t. D iv. , 1995 -NMSC -046, ¶ 4, 120 N

. M. 178 , 899 P

. 2d 1 132. W e ap ply ade 10 no vo st an da rdo f rev ie w to th e le ga l co nc lu si on s. W ood v. Cu nni ngha m , 200 6- 11 N MC A -1 39, 140 N

. M. 699 , 147 P

. 3d 1 132. 12 { 13} Mc Farl an d L an d a rg ue s th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in g ranting a n e as em en t, 13 arguin g t h at t h e facts do no t supp ort the crea tion o f dom inant and servient estates 14 fr om H odge s’ div isi on o f his ranc h, nor e le m en ts o f anim

pli ed e as em en t by

ne ce ssi ty 15 that benefits the Ciolli Ranch as the dom inant estate. Mc Farland Land also claim s that 16 any easem ent by necessity is pr ecluded by the 1980 quiet title suit th at “ quieted titl e” 17 to th e Mc Farl an d R an ch ag ai ns t t he Cio ll is ’ pr ed eces so rs in ti tl e.8

1 { 14} W e fi rs t c onsi de r w he the r the e le m en ts o f anim pli ed e as em en t by

ne ce ssi ty 2 have been m et. W e then turn to whether the 1980 quiet title su it precludes the district 3 co ur t’s fi nd in g a n e as em en t b y ne ces si ty. 4 A . Ea se m en t by N ec es sit y: Th re e El em en ts an d a P re su m pt ion 5 { 15} Ea sem ents by

necessity are im plied by lawbecause convey ance of land carries 6 with i t ap r e su m

pt i ontha tn e i t he r

o f t he r e su l t i ng p a r c e l s se ve r e d by ac on ve y ance 7 w ill be de pr ived of

c er ta in i m pli ed r igh ts, inc lud ing a n im

pli ed r igh t of a cc es s. 8 “ [W ] hen a grantor convey s property , a bsent a clear indication to the contrary , a court 9 is al low ed to pr es um e tha t the co nve y an ce w as done w ith the int en tio n to r es er ve to 10 him se lf

, or c onve y to his gr an te es aw ay to acce ss the pr ope rty so i t c anbe 11 be ne fic ia ll y

ut il iz ed

. He rrera v. Rom an Catho lic Church , 199 1- N MC A -0 89, ¶ 10, 12 112 N

. M. 717 , 819 P.2 d 264. Re sta te m en t ( T hir d) of P ro pe rty : S er

vit ude s § 2

. 15 13 (2 000) , e xpl ai ns the appl ic at ionof thi s r ule : “ A c onve y an ce tha t w oul d othe rw ise 14 de pr ive the land c onve y ed to the gr an te e, or

land r et ained by

the gr an tor , of

r igh ts 15 ne ce ssary

to re as onabl e en

j oym en t of

the land i m

pli es the c re at ionof

ase rv itu de 16 gr an tin g or

r es er vin g su ch r igh ts, unl es s th e la ngua ge or c ir cu m stanc es of

the 17 co nve y an ce cl earl y ind ic at e tha t the pa rt ie s int en de d to de pr ive the pr ope rty of tho se 18 rights.”9

1 { 16} T o e sta

bli sh an e as em en t by

ne ce ssi ty , thr ee e le m en ts m ust be m et : 2 (1) unity

of title, indicating that the dom inant and ser vient [ parcels] we re 3 ow ne d a s asin gle [ pa rc el ] pri or to the se pa ra tio n . . . ; ( 2) tha t the 4 dom inant [ pa rc el ha d] be ense ve re d f ro m the se rv ie nt [parc el ] , the re by 5 c u rt a i l i n g a c c e s s o f t h e o w n e r

o f t h e d o mi n a n t[ p a r c e l ] t o a n df r o m a 6 publ ic r oa dw ay ; and ( 3) tha t a r ea sona ble ne ce ssity ex is ted .

. . a t the 7 t i m e t h e d o m i n an tp ar ce l wa s s ev er ed fr o m t h e s er v i en t[p ar ce l ]. 8 Id

. ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks an d c ita tio n om itt ed ). A s no te d be low , a n e as em en t by 9 ne ces si ty gen eral ly last s as lo ng as t he ne ces si t y t h a t c r e at edit

. See Sitterly v. 10 Matthews , 200 0- N MC A -0 37, ¶ 30, 129 N

. M. 134 , 2 P

. 3d 8 71. 11 { 17} W e m

ust exam ine the facts in light of the elem ents r eq u i re d to establis h an 12 eas em en t b y

ne ces si ty. 13 1. U ni ty of

Ti tl e 14 { 18} H odge s ow ne d th e sin gle pie ce of land f ro m w hic h th e Ci olli R an ch a nd 15 Mc Farl an d R an chw er e cr ea te d a t di ff er en t t im es . S er

vit ude s by ne ce ssity a ri se on 16 severance of rights held in a unity of ownership; the requirem ent is fulfilled, as her e, 17 “ when a gr antor divid es a single parcel into two or m ore parc els, and it can take place 18 wh en a g rant or convey s less than full ownership in a single parcel. ” H ur l oc k e r v. 19 M ed ina , 1 99 4- N MC A -0 82, ¶ 11, 118 N

. M. 30, 878 P

. 2d 3 48 ( int er na l qu ota tio n 20 m ar ks and c ita tio n om itt ed ). T he e le m en t of uni ty of ti tle betwee n th e ranc he s is 2 1 u n d i s p u t e di n t h i s c a s e a n ds up p o rt s a n e a s e men tb y n e c e s s i t y.10

1 2

. Legal Acc ess Was Curt ailed by the Severan ce 2 { 19} Selling the McFar land Ranch to Shine McFar land create d a landlocked 3 pr ope rty ow ne d by H odge s that ha d no le ga l a cc es s to apub lic r oa d. A n e as em en t by 4 ne ce ssi ty

“ can on ly

a ri se w he re a n ow ne r of

pr ope rty se ve rs aportio n of

his pr ope rty 5 an d the por tio n r e t a i n e do r s o l di s c u to f

f f r o m a c c e s s t o ap ub l i c r o u t e b y t h e l a nd 6 from which it was severed. ” Amoco Pro d. Co . v. Si ms , 198 1- N MS C- 115, ¶ 13, 97 7 N

. M. 324, 639 P. 2d 1 178; Hurlocker , 199 4- N MC A -0 82, ¶ 5 ( ci tin g H

erre ra , 199 1- 8 N MC A -0 89, ¶

10) ; s ee Brooks v. Tanner , 198 4- N MS C- 048, ¶ 25, 101 N

. M. 203 , 680 9 P. 2d 3 43; Los Vigiles Land Grant v. Re bar Haygood Ranch, LLC , 201 4- N MC A -0 17, 10 ¶ 28, 317 P. 3d 84 2. T he basis for the easem ent m ust exi s t at the tim e of the initial 11 se ve ran ce. H

erre ra , 1991-NMC A- 089, ¶ 14. No legal acce ss to a publ ic road existed 12 fr om the H odge s’ pa rc el of

the se ve re d pr ope rty . T he e vid en ce c ite d by Mc Farl an d 13 L an d sh ow s th at

S hin e Mc Farl an d e nte re d th e H o d g e s ’ pr ope rty via the L atha m

Ro ute 14 to t en d to c at tle on tha t r an cha nd th en us ed the f ee d r oa d to a cc es s Q R 4 6 th ro ugh 15 his r an chpr ior

to 1993 whe n the c ur

re nt C iol li Ranc h w as f

ir st s old

. T he re is no 16 doub t that Shine McFar land was ac tually aw are both of the L atham Route and that 1 7 the onl y d i r e c t a c c e s s t o Q R 4 6 f r o m t h e H o d g e s ’ p r o p e rt y w a s t h r o u g h the 18 Mc Farl an d R an chpr ior to the crea tio n of

w ha t i s no w the Ci oll i R an ch

. Be ca use 19 Hod ge s had res erv ed no rig ht s to acce ss QR 46 at th e ti m e o f th e Mc Farl an d s al e, we11

1 co nc lud e tha t the e le m en t of c urta ilm en t f

ro m a cc es s t o a pu blic ro ad

w as pr ope rl y 2 es ta bli she d. 3 3. Re asonable Nec essity for A ccess to QR 46 Was Established 4 { 20} A n e as em en t by

ne ce ssi ty ar ise s w he n, “ pr ior to the c onve y an ce , the pr ope rty 5 did enj oy

suc h r igh ts [ of

a cc es s] a nd tha t, abse nt the im pli ed se rv itu de , the 6 co nve y an ce w oul d de pr ive it of suc h r igh ts. ” Re sta te m en t, supr a , § 2.15 cmt. c

. 7 Hodges owned the com plete tract of property

from which the M cF ar land Ranch 8 pa rc el w as the n se ve re d. A t a ll tim es m at er ia l to Hod ge s’ ow ne rs hip of the c om ple te 9 tr ac t, Q R 46 w as its onl y le ga lly en fo rc ea ble ac ce ss to a publ ic hig hw ay . T he se f ac ts 10 sa tis fy

the r equir em en t tha t a

r ea sona ble ne ce ssi ty

f or the ro ad ex ist ed at the ti m e the 11 do m in an t p arce l was sev ered fro m th e se rv ie nt pa rcel

. Se e Lo s Vi gil es L and G rant , 12 2014 -N MCA -017, ¶ 28. This is s o because there m ust on ly be a re ason abl e ne ce ssi ty 13 fo r th e u se of t he ser vi tu de at t he ti m e o f th e se ve ran ce. S e e id. ¶ 3 2

. Ac c o r d i n g l y, 14 “ ne ce ssi ty ” co nnot es a n un de rs ta ndi ng tha t, w hil e m or e than m er e co nve nie nc e is 15 inv olv ed , t he re c anbe no o the r re as ona ble w ay of e nj oy ing the dom inant t en em en t 16 wit ho ut th e e a s e ment

. V en egas v . L uby , 194 5- N MS C- 045, ¶ 17, 49 N

. M. 381 , 164 1 7 P

. 2 d5 8 4

. T h e f

a c t s e s t ab l i s h t h a tt h e n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e e a s e me n te x i s t e da tt h e t i me 18 of se ve ranc e. I t e xis te d fro m the ti m e Sh ine Mc Farl an d bo ught the pr ope rty

f ro m 19 H odge s.12

1 { 21} McFar land Land incorrec tly argues t hat because o ther perm issiv e uses existed 2 at t he tim e o f severance, necessity for an easem ent wa s defeate d. It is und isput ed that 3 the onlypubli c road Ho dges’ original property abutted was Q R 46 and that oth er 4 acce ss to th e property result ed fr o m p erm issiv e transit over others’ land. U nder 5 H erre ra , r evocable perm issio n to cross oth er land is “ irrelevant” and is “ no barrier 6 to the f

ind ing of a n e as em en t by

ne ce ssi ty

tha t the be ne fi tte d parc el is ac ce ss ib le 7 unde r. ” 1991 -N MC A -0 89, ¶ 14. H er e, a s in H erre ra , a lternative m eans of acc ess over 8 ot he rs ’ pr op ert y

ha d b een rev ok ed

. 9 { 22} M cF ar l an dLa n dal s o as s er t s t h at t h er e “wa s n o ev i d en ce t h at [t h e C i o l l i s ’] 1 0 p r e d e c e s s o r

h a de v e n u s e dt h e f

e e dr o a do r

t h a t i t w a s e v e n i n e x i s t e n c e a t t h e t i me 11 of the convey ance to [Mc Farland Land’ s] predecessor in inte r e st

. ” T hat is an incorrect 12 vie w of

the law . H odge s c urta ile d dir ec t ac ce ss to the onl y ad j ac en t pu bli c ro ad to his 13 pr ope rty

( inc lud ing the as y et unse ve re d Ciol li Ranc h) w he n he sol d th e Mc Farl an d 14 Ranc h to S hin e Mc Farl an d. I t i s th e ri ght of a cc es s to th e public r oa d th at is a 15 ne ces si ty, no t wh ere t he acce ss m ig ht be lo cat ed or it s pr io r us e ordi su se . Se e id. ¶ 16 16 (“ [T ] he e as em en t need no t be put to co nti nuou s us e but

m ay li e dor m an t thr ough 17 successive grantees so as to be available to a subsequ ent grantee. ”). 18 { 23} T he pa rt ie s ha ve no d isp ute that Q R 4 6 is the onl y pub lic r oa d by

w hic h th e13

1 or igi na l H odge s prop er ty can be dir ec tly

a cc es se d. Re ga rd le ss o f howne ce ssary the 2 fe ed r oa d is tod ay fo r the Ci oll is, the r ea sona ble -n ec es sity

r equir em en t i s m et

be ca use 3 acce ss to QR 46 wa s reasonably necessary for H odges, such that Hodges is presum ed 4 to h av e int en de d to r es er ve a n e as em en t i n th e sa le to Sh ine Mc Farl an d. I d. ¶ 1 0 (“ An 5 ea se m en t by ne ce ssi ty ar ise s fr om an im pli ed gr an t or r es er

va tio n of ar igh t of ing re ss 6 and egress to a landlocked parcel.” ). 7 { 24} T he re fo re , w e hol d th e requ ire m en t sa ti sf ie d th at “ a re as ona

ble ne ce ssi ty 8 ex is te d fo r su ch r igh t of w ay a t the ti m e the dom inant p ar ce l w as se ve re d f ro m the 9 se r vi e nt [ pa rcel] .” Lo s V

igi les L and G rant , 20 14 -NMCA- 01 7, ¶ 2 8 (i nt erna l qu otatio n 10 m ar ks and ci ta tio n om itt ed ); Hurlocker , 19 9 4 -N M CA -0 8 2 , ¶ 1 1 . The d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 11 finding the existence of an ea s ement b y necessity

is supp orted by

subst antial 12 ev ide nc e. W e ag re e tha t, ba se d on the cr ea tio n of the e as em en t by im pli ca tio n f

ro m 13 H odge s’ se ve ranc e of the Mc Farl an d R an chpr ope rty fr om his ow n, the e as em en t i s 14 ap purte na nt t o th e dom inant es ta te , the pr ope rty nowkno w n a s th e Ci oll i R an ch , a nd 15 the McFar land Ranch is the servient estate. Beca use the easem ent is a

right that is tied 16 to ownership of the Ciolli Ranch property , f or which it is necessar

y , it is an 17 ap pu rte na nt eas em en t. Re st at em en t, supr a , § 1. 5(1).14

1 B. Pr eclusive Ef

fectof th e 1980 Quiet Title Suit on an Easem ent by Ne cessity 2 { 25} N ex t, w e addre ss Mc Farl an d Land’ s asse rt ion tha t any e as em en t t o w hic h th e 3 McFar land Ranch wa s subjected by m eans o f t h e convey ance by Hodges wa s 4 ex tin gui she d by

the qui et ti tle a ct ionof

198 0. 5 { 26} T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t a qui et ti tle sui t onbe ha lf

of ase rv ie nt e sta te c oul d 6 not e xti ngui sh an e as em en t by ne ce ssi ty w he n it r uns w iththe land and i s a

ppur te na nt 7 to the dom inant e sta te. Al te rn at ive ly , the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t, be ca use of the 8 ne ce ssi ty

f or a cc es s to the Ci oll i R an ch , the eas em en t wa s im m ed ia te ly r ev ive d or 9 co uld not be te rm ina te d be ca

use the ne ce ssi ty

f or the e as em en t e xis te d, an d e as em en ts 10 can on ly term in at e whe n t he ne ces si ty for t he m als o t erm in at es . 11 { 27} T he im

pli ed int en t of the gr an tor to cr ea te an ea se m en t by ne ce ssi ty de pe nds 12 on the existen ce o f t h e n ec essity for the ea sem ent at the tim e of the original 13 convey ance cr eating the landlo cked property , w hich at the tim e of severance crea tes 14 do m in an t and ser vi en t es ta te s. H erre ra poi nts out

tha t the e as em en t—the r igh t t o us e 15 the servient estate—w ould exist from the tim e of its cre ation irrespective of w hether 16 it w as use d. 199 1- N MCA- 089, ¶ 16. A lso , a s w e not ed

in H erre ra , a n e as em en t by 17 ne ces si ty do es no t requ ire ex erci se of th e rig ht co nf erre d t o re m ai n v al id

. Se e id. ¶ 10. 18 { 28} W e ha ve pr ev iou sly ind ic at ed tha t a qui et ti tle a ct ionto a se rv ie nt e sta te is not 19 ca pable of ex tin gui shi ng an im pli ed ea se m en t by

ne ce ssi ty be lon gin g to adom inant15

1 es ta te abse nt i ts spe ci fi c inc lus ion fo r ad j udi ca tio n a nd a

spe ci fi c ru lin g a ddr es sin g 2 ad j udi ca tio n inthe qui et

ti tle sui t. I n Lo s Vig il es L and G rant , w e co m m en te d on 3 inc ongr

uity of the ow ne r of the Re ba r H ay good Ranc h’ s sp ec if

ic al ly qui et ing ti tle to 4 aning re ss/ eg re ss e as em en t by ne ce ssi ty

a s to se rv ie nt es ta te s to the sou th o f his 5 property

without addressing that properties to the no rth had sim ilar ea sem ents over 6 his land. 201 4- N MC A -0 17, ¶¶ 42- 43. U lti m at el y , w e he ld tha t the qui et ti tle a ct ion 7 co uld not “ reaso nably

be c onstru ed

to pr ec lud e [the northe rnne ighbor s’ ] e as em en t 8 by ne ce ssi ty c la im s” w he re the ow ne r ha d no t sp ec if ic al ly inc lud ed the e as em en t t o 9 whi ch hi s la nd was se rv ie nt in th e co m pl ai nt forqu ie t t it le

. Id

. ¶ 44. T he ev ide nc e in 10 thi s ca se de m onstra te s that the ne ce ssi ty fo r ac ce ss o f the H odge s’ pr ope rty to its onl y 1 1 ad j a c e n tp ub l i c r o a dw a s kn o w n t o S h i n e M c F a r l a n d , w h o h i m s e l f u s e dthe 12 pe rm iss ive a cc es s to ge t i nto the H odge s’ pr ope rty a nd the fe ed ro ad to g et

to Q R 4 6. 13 { 29} W e cannot

f ind in the r ec or d bef

or e us, an d it is not ar gue d, tha t the qui et ti tle 14 sui t i n 19 80 i n a ny

w ay spe ci fi ca lly

c onc er ne d it se lf w iththe use of

the r oa d no w 15 cl ai m ed

to be a n e as em en t be ca

use , w he n S hin e Mc Farl an d f ile d th e qui et

ti tle a ct ion , 16 the use of

the f ee d r oa d by

H odge s a

ppare ntl y w as n ot , a nd co ul d no t have be enin 17 que sti on, sin ce the L atha m Ro ute w as sti ll av ai la

ble

. T he e xis te nc e of

the e as em en t 18 by ne ce ssi ty

w as dor m an t. A ddi tio na lly , tho ugh the qui et ti tle sui t m igh t have 19 es ta bli she d th e boun da ri es of

the Mc Farl an d pr ope rt ie s a ga ins t a ll poss ibl e cl ai m an ts,16

1 it did n ot seek to elim inate all use s to which the property wa s servient. More over, 2 m ost of the w ay s by

which ea sem ents by

necessity m ight b e extinguis hed—m erger 3 of the dom inant or servient estate, a bandon m ent, or r elinqui shm ent—are not issues 4 h ere. No r is th e ces sa ti on of t he un de rlyin g p ur po se forth e eas em en t, se e Sit te rly , 5 2000 -N MC A -0 37, ¶

23, sin ce the ini tia l nec es sity to c onne ct w ithQ R 4 6 st ill e xis ts. 6 { 30} W e af

fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt. T he Ci oll is’ ri ght s unde r the e as em en t by ne ce ssi ty 7 w er e not

e xti ngui she d or

oth er w ise a ff ec te d by the qui et ti tle sui t. 8 III. CON CLU SION 9 { 31} W e conclude that, based on the eviden ce p resented d uring the su m m ary 10 j udgm ent proceedings and the district court’ s finding s of fac t, the district court w as 11 co rr ec t i n it s j udgm en t tha t the Ci oll i Ranc h is e nti tle d to a n im pli ed e as em en t by 12 necessity

as to the feed r oad across the McFarland Ranch, along th e northeast border 13 of the Mc Farl an d R an ch , te rm ina tin g a t Q R 4 6. T he e as em ent by n ec es sity is not 14 pr ec lud ed

by the 198 0 qu ie t t itl e ac tio n be ca use the eas em en t by

ne ce ssi ty

w as a 15 pr ope rty

r igh t appu rt en an t to the d om inant e sta te tha t bu rd en ed the se rv ie nt e sta te a nd 16 co uld not be e xti ngui she d. 17 { 32} W e af

fi rm the j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt and r em an d f or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs 18 as m ay

be ne ed edto effe ct th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co ur t.17

1 { 33} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

2

____ ____ __ __ __ __ __ ________ ____ ____ __ 3 R OD ERIC K T . KE N N ED Y , Ju dg e 4 WE CO NCUR:

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 6 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e

7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 8 TIMOT HY L. GAR CIA , Jud ge