Opinion ID: 2179425
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Third Question

Text: [19] ¶ 19. Here, in contrast to the Schwabs, the McCormicks have established all the preliminary elements necessary to their claim for relief. First, Olk owned both the parcel now owned by Schubring (the proposed servient estate) and the parcel owned by the McCormicks (the proposed dominant estate) when the McCormicks' parcel became landlocked. Second, the McCormicks' parcel continues to have no access to a public highway. ¶ 20. We now turn to the additional relevant facts considered by the circuit court as it exercised its discretion. In favor of the McCormicks' claim, the court considered that: (1) extremely limited use can be made of the landlocked property without the requested vehicular access; (2) this is very wild land, used by both parties solely for hunting; (3) while the McCormicks stand in the shoes of a grantor, the creation of the landlocked circumstances was due to Langlade County's seizure of Olk's property for delinquent taxes, not to a voluntary act of the grantor; [4] (4) after the direct access to a highway was taken by the county, Olk continued to reach the landlocked parcel by using the dirt road through the 40 acres now owned by Schubring; (5) when the county sold the 40-acre parcel to Gresch, Olk continued to use the dirt road for access; and (6) when the McCormicks purchased the property from Olk, they knew of the road and used it to access the property, even improving the road with Schubring's consent. [5] In Schubring's favor, the court considered that: (1) when the McCormicks bought the property, they knew they had no legally enforceable right to use the road and that without permission to use it, the parcel they were buying would be landlocked; (2) before Schubring purchased the property, he did not see the dirt road; [6] (3) he checked for an easement by word of mouth, and by asking the town and county clerks if they had documents pertaining to the property. He found no documents, and no one with whom he spoke told him the property was subject to an easement; (4) he was concerned that if he chose to construct a building on the property, he would be unable to do so because the land is most suitable for building in the area of the road; and (5) his property is less valuable with a legally enforceable easement across it. ¶ 21. The circuit court then balanced the benefits and burdens created by those facts. It noted that while the McCormicks presently have pedestrian access across Schubring's property because the property is under a Wisconsin managed-forest program, all access could be extinguished, when and if Schubring decides to remove the property from the program. Further, the circuit court noted that this is very remote, wild land and that to limit access to foot traffic would involve the McCormicks traversing Schubring's property for more than a quarter of a mile over very rough terrain. The court also concluded that vehicular access to property is more important than in the past, and that the easement of necessity should include vehicular access. The court found the burden to Schubring's property is minimal, as the road is already in existence and has been used by vehicles in the past. It also found that continued use of the road would not prevent the construction of a building on Schubring's property at some time in the future. Accordingly, because the McCormicks proved the elements preliminarily required for an easement of necessity and the circuit court weighed the burdens and benefits to each party's property from the proposed easement, we cannot conclude that it erroneously exercised its discretion in granting the easement. See City of Brookfield, 171 Wis. 2d at 423.