Case Name: The MOORINGS ASSOCIATION, INC., Individually and The Moorings Association, Inc., a Class Representation, Appellants, v. TORTOISE ISLAND COMMUNITIES, INC., and Tortoise Island Group, Ltd., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1984-12-13
Citations: 460 So. 2d 961
Docket Number: No. 83-499
Parties: The MOORINGS ASSOCIATION, INC., Individually and The Moorings Association, Inc., a Class Representation, Appellants, v. TORTOISE ISLAND COMMUNITIES, INC., and Tortoise Island Group, Ltd., Appellees.
Judges: WATSON, R.O., Associate Judge, concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 460
Pages: 961–974

Head Matter:
The MOORINGS ASSOCIATION, INC., Individually and The Moorings Association, Inc., a Class Representation, Appellants, v. TORTOISE ISLAND COMMUNITIES, INC., and Tortoise Island Group, Ltd., Appellees.
No. 83-499.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Dec. 13, 1984.
J. Daniel Ennis of Ennis & Northcutt, Indian Harbour Beach, for appellants.
Kerry I. Evander of Reinman, Harrell, Silberhorn, Moule & Graham, P.A., Melbourne, for appellees.

Opinion:
ORFINGER, Judge.
This appeal is from a final order dismissing appellants' second amended complaint and cause of action. We reverse because we find that the complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for an implied easement.
Appellants, The Moorings Association, Inc., individually, and The Moorings Association, on behalf of the homeowners of The Moorings Subdivision, pursuant to Rule 1.220, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, sued appellees Tortoise Island Communities, Inc. and Tortoise Island Group, Ltd. The Moorings is a residential subdivision located on the east side of a canal known as the Great Canal. On the west side of the canal is an island and west of the island is the Banana River. Because we are dealing with an order dismissing appellants' (plaintiffs) second amended complaint, we assume the correctness of all well-pleaded allegations.
The appellants alleged that the Moorings homeowners purchased their lots from T.O.L., Inc., a subsidiary of Condeland Corporation, and, as part of the inducement to purchase, they were promised an access canal across the adjacent island to the Banana River, thus giving the lot owners direct access to the Banana River from the Great Canal. After some of the lots were sold, Condeland actually constructed the access canal, known as the "Moorings Cut," completing it in 1967. Since that time, the cut has been used by most Moorings residents who own boats for ingress and egress to the Banana River.
In 1967, after opening the canal, T.O.L. and Condeland Corporation executed and delivered written grants of easement through the "Moorings Cut" to thirteen of appellant's homeowners. It appears from the allegations of the second amended complaint that each grant of easement was by a separate document specifically naming each of the thirteen lot owners as a grantee. The thirteen express easement holders are apparently not parties to this action, except as members of the association. In the letter which accompanied these easement grants, the developer recited that the grants were in "fulfillment of our promise to provide permanent access for you, your family, and all residents of the Moorings to the waters of the Banana River" (emphasis added). The thirteen recorded easements contained a recitation that the grant "... is intended to give the Grantees the right and privilege, in common with others of access by boat in the waters of the Banana River . ".
It was also alleged that T.O.L. subsequently conveyed the island to the appel-lees, Tortoise Island Communities, Inc. and Tortoise Island Group, Ltd., who were fully aware of the existence of the access canal and of its continuous use by the Moorings residents. In July, 1982, the appellees filled in portions of the canal, thereby preventing the appellants from using the cut as a direct access to the Banana River. As a result, the appellants brought an action seeking an injunction against any further filling of the cut, removal of the fill already placed in the cut, an adjudication of a constructive trust, and an adjudication of an express or implied easement on behalf of the residents who purchased their property in reliance upon the existence of the easement.
An easement may be created either by express grant, by implication or by prescription. Winthrop v. Wadsworth, 42 So.2d 541 (Fla.1949); Canell v. Arcola Housing Corp., 65 So.2d 849 (Fla.1953). While the complaint fails to allege facts showing an express grant to these appellants or acquisition of an easement by prescriptive use, it does sufficiently allege an easement by implication, so that the dismissal of the second amended complaint was error. The trial court was apparently erroneously led to believe that an easement by implication must depend on a showing of "strict necessity" such as is required to claim a common-law way of necessity, now codified in section 704.01, Florida Statutes (1983), but that standard is too rigorous in determining whether or not there exists an easement by implication as is asserted here.
An implied easement is based on the concept that whenever a grantor conveys property, he includes or intends to include in the conveyance whatever is necessary for its beneficial use and enjoyment. 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses § 24 (1966). An implied easement may generally arise from an implied grant or reservation in a deed, from a conveyance calling for a way as a boundary, from a conveyance with reference to a plat or map showing streets or ways, or as a way of necessity. 20 Fla.Jur.2d Easements § 20 (1980). Whether an easement arises by implication depends on the intent of the parties as shown by the circumstances under which the conveyance was made. 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses § 24.
There are three essential elements for the creation of an easement by implication: (1) unity of title between the dominant and servient estate and a subsequent separation; (2) necessity that, before the separation takes place, the use which gives rise to the easement shall have been so long continued and obvious or manifest as to show that it was meant to be permanent; and (3) necessity that the easement be essential to the beneficial enjoyment of the land granted or retained. Kirma v. Norton, 102 So.2d 653 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958).
In the case at bar, unity of title is alleged. The complaint also asserts that it was the intent of the developer to create an easement in favor of all Moorings residents, that the access canal was open and visible and that the appellees were not bona fide purchasers without notice, that the use of the access canal from 1967 to 1982 was so long, continued and obvious as to show that it was meant to be permanent, and that by filling in the canal the appel-lees were depriving the owners of a valuable property right and were diminishing the value of their property.
On the element of "necessity," Florida courts recognize that the degree of necessity required to be alleged fluctuates with the type of implied easement. For example, the common-law implied grant of a way of necessity is codified in Fla.Stat. § 704.01 and requires that in order for such an easement to exist there must be "no other reasonable and practicable way of egress, or ingress" and the easement must be "reasonably necessary for the beneficial use or enjoyment of the part granted or reserved." Thus, the statute requires that there be an absolute necessity for the easement. Such strict necessity is not asserted sub judice, and it is clear that appellants are not relying on the existence of an easement under the statute.
Rather, appellants appear to be basing their right to recovery on the common-law doctrine of implied grant or "quasi-easement," recognized by Florida courts as related to, but different from the doctrine of strict necessity. See, Williams Island Country Club, Inc. v. San Simeon at the California Club, Ltd., 454 So.2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Star Island Associates v. City of St. Petersburg Beach, 433 So.2d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Dinkins v. Julian, 122 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). The doctrine of implied easement contemplates that when a landowner Conveys part of his land, he impliedly grants all apparent or visible easements upon the part retained which were at that time used by the grant- or for the benefit of the land conveyed and which were reasonably necessary for use of the land conveyed. Star Island Associates at 1003; Dinkins at 622, quoting 2 Thompson on Real Property § 392 (1980).
In Dinkins v. Julian, the court discussed the doctrine of implied grant as a principle of law separate and distinct from the implied grant by way of necessity. There, the plaintiffs sought equitable relief to prevent obstruction of a roadway which had been in long and continuous use, and which made their properties corner lots be cause of the intersection of that roadway with other streets in the subdivision.
After dispensing with the implied grant by way of necessity because the complaint did not allege strict necessity, the Dinkins court addressed the doctrine of implied grant. Relying on Thompson on Real Property, the court recognized the doctrine of implied grant, holding that there must have been a separation of title and a use, before separation took place, which continued long enough to show that the use was meant to be permanent. The implied easement, the court stated, is "gathered from the circumstances surrounding the conveyance and this is taken to mean that whatever is obviously in use as an incident or an appurtenance passes by implication when the land is sold." Dinkins, 122 So.2d at 623. The court further stated that a presumption exists that the parties contracted with reference to the visual condition of the property at the time of sale, but that this presumption may be rebutted by showing actual knowledge to the contrary. Nevertheless, because there was no allegation of unity of title, the court held that an implied grant was not sufficiently alleged.
Dinkins recognizes that the creation of an easement by implication from a pre-existing use does not require an absolute, but only a reasonable, necessity, such as will contribute to the convenient enjoyment of property, other than mere temporary convenience. See also, 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses § 33 (1966). See also, Kirma, supra, a case involving a sewer pipe which ran from a subdivision under a subsequent grantee's property and out into a river, where the court observed that an easement by implication is "held to be impliedly granted, or more rarely, reserved, in view of circumstances existing at the time of the conveyance which would make such easement necessary for the complete enjoyment of the estate granted or reserved." Id., 102 So.2d at 656-57.
The doctrine of implied grant, reinforced by the principle that a grantor is equitably estopped to deny that grant, was recognized by this court in Leffler v. Smith, 388 So.2d 261 (Pla. 5th DCA 1980) rev. denied, 397 So.2d 778 (Fla.1981). In that case the developer, Inez Meredith, subdivided a parcel into 29 lots as the Gene Gables Section of Meredith Manor. She later conveyed 26 of these lots to Meredith Enterprises, the deed containing a recitation that "all of lot 1, Block "E" is reserved for the exclusive use of resident property owners of record as a park and bathing beach." This lot fronted on Lake Brantley. The following year Inez Meredith subdivided another parcel of land into 73 lots, as the Nob Hill Section, Meredith Manor, and conveyed all 73 lots to Meredith Enterprises. Lot 15 Block "A" of that section fronted on Lake Rena. In the deed conveying the 73 lots, there was no reference to any easement in Lot 15, Block "A," but the evidence showed that over the ensuing years in its dealings and negotiations with potential customers, Meredith Enterprises held out and represented to them that Lot 15, Block "A" and Lot 1, Block "E" were set aside for the use of the residents of both developments; the Lake Brantley lot for bathing and the Lake Rena lot for boat ramp purposes.
Much like the case sub judice, in Leffler, some but not all of the purchasers were given deeds indicating that those grantees were to have the use and privilege of all "resident only parks and beaches." This court affirmed the trial court's finding that implied easements existed over and upon both lots and that the easements inured to the benefit of all residents of both subdivisions, holding that
Meredith Enterprises is equitably es-topped from denying to the Meredith Manor lot owners that which they were led to believe they had. See Wilson v. Dunlap, 101 So.2d 801 (Fla.1958); McCorquodale v. Keyton, 63 So.2d 906 (Fla. 1953).
Clearly, strict necessity was not involved in Leffler, and it is not required here, where it is not relied on as a basis for relief. Thompson on Real Property explains the different degrees of "necessity" required for various types of implied easements in this manner:
So it is held that the necessity in establishing an easement by implication is one of reasonableness while the necessity in creating an "easement of necessity" is absolute. An easement by necessity is not dependent upon the previous existence of quasi easements but is implied because the land could not otherwise be utilized. And so the "necessity" doctrine in implied easements has been denied. Where there is a severance of a semi dominated part of a tract from the semi dominating such fact alone does not create an easement by inference unless some necessity for continuance of the easement exists.
The element of necessity is not really involved in cases in which easements in the grantor's land are impliedly granted as part of the property conveyed. Continuous and apparent easements are implied on the theory that the purchaser of land "is entitled to enjoy the thing as it was when he bought it, with all its apparent appurtenances, if those apparent appurtenances are apparently permanent and are useful and add to its value," and it is somewhat difficult to see why the purchaser should not have such apparent appurtenance, even though it is not necessary. Where the word "necessary" appears in the cases it has been used in the sense merely, it would seem, of "necessary for the use of the tenement in the state it is in when severed." In case there is no actual physical necessity for an easement, open and continuous use of one parcel of land for the benefit of another is requisite to the creation of an easement by implication upon severance of title to the entire tract.
There is a good deal of authority, however, for the proposition that an easement may be inferred only where its presence is "necessary" to the dominant estate. It is declared in many cases that no easement or quasi easement can be taken as granted or reserved by implication, unless it is reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of the estate granted or retained by the grantor, and the easement is in fact annexed to it and in use at the time of the grant and is, as well, open, apparent and continuous, (footnotes omitted).
Thus, Thompson states:
[t]he prevailing rule of the modern cases seems to be that the necessity required in order to pass an easement by implication by a grant by a person of a part of his estate is a reasonable necessity, not an absolute necessity. It is sufficient if full enjoyment of the property cannot be had without the easement or that it materially adds to the value of the land, (footnotes omitted).
2 Thompson on Real Property § 353 (1980).
In Williams Island the plaintiff attempted to establish and preserve an easement for a strip of land running from the green of one hole on its golf course to the tee of the next hole. The lower court denied a temporary injunction because there was no recorded easement for this path. The appellate court reversed, holding that a prima facie showing was made of an easement by implication. The court agreed that strict necessity was not required to create the easement by implication, relying on many of the authorities we have cited here. After referencing to the original unity of title and long use of the path, the court said:
The rationale supporting implied easements is the court's conclusion that the parties must have intended to grant or reserve an easement as part of the conveyance of land based on the circumstances at the time of the conveyance. Restatement of Property § 476 (1944); 3 H. Tiffany, Real Property § 780 (3d ed. 1939). First, the use of the land for the easement must be apparent or visible, or reasonably discoverable at the time the unity of title was severed. Here the golf cart path was in existence and use, and was paved at the time of the conveyance to Nobata, N.V. Second, the use must be such that a permanent use was intended. 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements § 31 (1966). Here, testimony of the original parties, and language in their contract supports the inference that a permanent golf cart easement was intended. Restatement of Property § 476 (1944).
Id. 454 So.2d at 25 (footnote omitted).
As to the element of necessity, then, it appears that because appellants alleged that the easement was reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of their property, materially added to the value of the land and had been in actual use at the time of the grant and was open, apparent and continuous, the appellants have sufficiently alleged an easement by implied grant. While appellants do not allege that they are otherwise without navigational access to the Banana River, they do allege that appel-lees' action in filling a portion of the access cut resulted in blocking their direct water access to the river which they had previously enjoyed and resulted in a diminution in the value of their property. As such, this aspect of necessity appears to have been adequately alleged in appellants' complaint, and it appears that appellants have sufficiently asserted a cause of action based upon the doctrine of implied grant. This is especially so when one considers that:
[wjhether an easement is implied in a grant depends upon the law of equitable estoppel arising from the appearances created by the act of the grantor. If, by holding out certain appearances to the purchaser, he induces the expectation on his part that with the land purchased he is to receive certain privileges, it would be inequitable for the grantor to defeat that expectation by afterwards denying them, (footnote omitted).
2 Thompson on Real Property § 353 (1980). See also, Leffler v. Smith, supra.
The advertising material attached to the complaint, both by diagram and words, represents that an access canal through the island is available to the residents of the subdivision. The letter which accompanied the easement deeds to the thirteen residents refers to it as "fulfillment of our promise to provide permanent access for you, your family, and all residents of the Moorings to the waters of the Banana River." In McCorquodale v. Keyton, 63 So.2d 906 (Fla.1953), the supreme court, in upholding an implied grant, said that "common honesty should require that [the developer] perform that which at the time of the conveyance he represented he would perform." Id. at 910. We should require no less of the developer here, or of its successor charged with notice.
The courts should not allow a real estate developer to entice prospective purchasers with promises of alluring improvements and benefits, and not hold his feet to the fire when, after selling all the property because of the promises, he (or his successor with notice) decides that keeping his promises no longer suits his purpose. Equity provides a remedy for every wrong, and a recognized remedy is available here. Some two hundred innocent residents will see the value of their property seriously diminished (or so they allege and should be given an opportunity to prove) because the developer has been allowed to fill in a valuable waterway access which was promised to all the appellants when they purchased their property.
The final order of dismissal is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WATSON, R.O., Associate Judge, concurs.
COWART, J., dissents with opinion.