Opinion ID: 2317126
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Easement by necessity to reach an unaccessible portion of one's property, where the remaining portion is accessible by public road.

Text: Ms. Stansbury argues that the Court of Special Appeals erred in recognizing the existence of an easement by necessity to MDR over Lot 9A in order for access to a portion of its property, Lot 10A, which is surrounded on three sides by navigable water and on one side by Ms. Stansbury's property. Ms. Stansbury asserts that because a portion of MDR's property, Lot 178, where the residence will be located, has access to a public road, there is no need for MDR to have an easement by necessity. Ms. Stansbury's argument rests on her assertion that MDR's predecessor in interest to lots 178 and 10A, Caldwell, consolidated the lots into one lot, which now, as a single entity, has access to a public road. It is contended that the consolidation of the lots into a single lot ended whatever necessity existed. We do not need to consider whether the Agreement entered into by Caldwell actually consolidated lots 178 and 10A as it is not determinative as to whether an easement by necessity exists in this situation. The parcel of land identified as lot 10A, consolidated or not, remains inaccessible except over Ms. Stansbury's property, lots 179 and 9A. Thus, without a way of necessity the public policy of full utilization of land is frustrated. Additionally, we do not presume that the parcel of land identified as Lot 10A was at the time of the transfer in ownership between Ms. Stansbury and her brother granted with the intent that it be unfit for occupancy, which would be the result for that area identified as Lot 10A, should we decline to recognize that an easement by necessity exists over lot 179 or 9A, or both. Condry, 184 Md. at 321, 41 A.2d at 68. The unity of title in the affected parcels existed until 1986, when Ms. Stansbury executed a deed transferring her interests in lots 178 and 10A to her brother, and he in turn executed a deed transferring his interests in lots 179 and 9A to her. It was at this time, when the lots were first titled separately, that unity of title to all the lots was severed and an easement by necessity to Lot 10A arose. While Lot 178 had access to a public highway, Lot 10A was conveyed as a property inaccessible except through Ms. Stansbury's Lot 9A (and perhaps Lot 179 as well). It is reasonable to presume that Ms. Stansbury and her brother intended that he would have access to Lot 10A, otherwise it would be unfit for occupancy. This was the time of the initial severance of the unity of title of the then four lots, and therefore, an easement by necessity was clearly implied at that time. See Hancock, 236 Md. at 102, 202 A.2d at 601; Greenwalt, 178 Md. at 136-38, 12 A.2d at 522-25; Zimmerman, 118 Md. 491, 84 A. 743, 745; Jay, 92 Md. 198, 48 A. 61, 63; Mitchell, 53 Md. 251; Oliver, 47 Md. 301; McTavish, 7 Md. 352. In addition, it was reasonably necessary for the fair enjoyment of the property that an easement by necessity be implied over Lot 9A (or Lot 179 or both under the circumstances here present) in order for the owner of Lot 10A to have access to the property. See Greenwalt, 178 Md. at 138, 12 A.2d at 525. It is evident that the way of necessity was implied at the time of the grant. Hancock, 236 Md. at 104-05, 202 A.2d at 603. The conditions at the time of the transfer of interests between Ms. Stansbury and her brother indicated the existence of an implied easement over Lot 9A for access to Lot 10A. Thus, even though Ms. Stansbury's brother may not have used an easement during his possession, [8] nor may have Caldwell, [9] the Hancock Court has made clear that non-use alone is not sufficient to extinguish a way by necessity. Id. 236 Md. at 105, 202 A.2d at 603 (citing Knotts v. Summit Park Co., 146 Md. 234, 126 A. 280 (1924)). Easements by necessity normally cease to exist when the necessity for the easement ceases. Hancock, 236 Md. at 105, 202 A.2d at 603. In the case sub judice it is evident that the necessity for the easement still exists. It is clear that the situation of two separate lots, Lot 178 and Lot 10A, requires that an easement by necessity exist over lots 179 or 9A, or both, in order to facilitate access to Lot 10A. Ms. Stansbury contends, however, that the consolidation of the lots into a single lot results in one lot which has access to a public road, and therefore there is no necessity for an easement. We find this distinction to be inapplicable because the necessity still exists whether the property is considered one lot or two. Assuming, arguendo, that the consolidation resulting from the Agreement does create one piece of property for all purposes, the problem still remains that there is no access to the area identified on the plat as Lot 10A without crossing either lots 179 or 9A, or both. All four lots, i.e., all of the parcels of land (lots 178, 179, 9A and 10A), meet at a single geometric point. Lot 178 is catty-cornered to Lot 10A. It is impossible for a person to cross from Lot 178, over that geometric point, to the parcel known as Lot 10A without intruding upon lot 179 or 9A, or both. This fact has existed since the unity of title was severed by the exchange of deeds between Ms. Stansbury and her brother. Under these circumstances, it is necessary to cross over Ms. Stansbury's property, lot 179 or 9A, or both, in order for MDR to access that parcel of land known as Lot 10A, and therefore, an easement of necessity exists by implication arising at the time of the exchange of deeds between Ms. Stansbury and her brother. Ms. Stansbury also argues that there is a conservation easement on Lot 10A which precludes any use of the property for which an easement by necessity would be required. In October, 1998, Caldwell recorded a Declaration of Easement Conditions and Restrictions, in which he agreed, in exchange for the creation of a Conservation Easement over portions of lots 178 and 10A, to not construct any structure upon the Conservation Property with the exception of a footbridge for access to Lot 10A. Lot 10A consists primarily of water and wetlands, with a small portion of serviceable land from which a pier extends into the Chesapeake Bay. All of that serviceable land, water and wetlands has been designated Conservation Property. Ms. Stansbury contends that the ordinary purposes for which a lot can be used is a consideration that must be taken into account by the court when deciding whether there is an implied easement by necessity. See Tiffany, supra, at § 793. It is her assertion that, because the parcel known as Lot 10A cannot have any non-water related structures built on it due to the Conservation Easement, there is no ordinary use for the property which necessitates an easement to access the property. The Declaration of Easement Conditions and Restrictions entered into between Caldwell and Anne Arundel County specifically states that [ t]he construction of a pier [footbridge] for access to Lot 10A is allowable, with the appropriate federal, state and county permits. [Emphasis added]. The fact that MDR cannot at present build any structures other than a footbridge on Lot 10A does not negate the necessity of an easement for access to the property. Agreements, even agreements as to easements, are subject to modification or even termination if the parties so agree. The limitations on the use of the land, if any, that now exist may not remain. Moreover, even if the limitations remain, ordinary use and enjoyment of the property can be as simple as walking amongst the wetlands, along the waterfront of the Chesapeake, and would certainly encompass the exercise of riparian rights, including access to, maintenance (perhaps replacement) and use of the pier extending into the bay. Subject to obtaining the appropriate federal, state and county permits, MDR may build the footbridge from Lot 178 over lots 179 or 9A, or both, to access Lot 10A.