Court Opinion

ID: 9673425
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:11:35.332244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:21.846630
License: Public Domain

DUNCAN, Justice,
dissenting.
Under Texas law, a party may not have a way of necessity when he has another legal means of access to his property. Bickler v. Bickler, 403 S.W.2d 354, 357 (Tex.1966); Duff v. Matthews, 158 Tex. 333, 311 S.W.2d 637, 642-43 (1958); Othen v. Rosier, 148 Tex. 485, 226 S.W.2d 622, 625-26 (1950). Accordingly, since the Foxes indisputably have legal access to their property on the road to the west of Beaver Creek, I respectfully dissent.
Facts
As the majority opinion states, the Koth-man Ranch was partitioned in 1955 into five tracts. The northern tract passed to Lydia Kothman Fuchs Fox, the mother of appel-lees, Harvey and Malcolm Fox. The southern tract passed to Huida Kothman Pluehnke, the mother of appellant, Geraldine Daniel. The remaining three tracts passed to Silas Kothman, Nellie Kothman Hausler, and Lillie Kothman Wisseman. Beaver Creek crosses through the center of each of the four northern tracts.
By the time of trial, the layout and ownership of the tracts had changed. The northern tract had passed to Malcolm and Harvey Fox, while the southern tract had passed to Geraldine Daniel. The Foxes only rarely used their land, preferring instead to lease it to a hunter. The Daniels, on the other hand, had retired and were building a home on their tract not far from the road to the east of Beaver Creek. The maps below show the general layout of the property, as well as the ownership of the tracts after the 1955 partition and at the time of trial.
*114[[Image here]]
As stated by the majority, a dispute arose between Eldon Kothman and the Foxes regarding the Foxes and their hunter’s use of the roads to the east and west of Beaver Creek. Ultimately, the Foxes filed suit, seeking easements permitting their use of both roads. Before trial, Ms. Hausler, then in her eighties, granted the Foxes easements through her property on both roads. During trial, Mr. Kothman — the remaining owner on the west — acknowledged an easement in favor of the Foxes on the road to the west of Beaver Creek. Therefore, by the time the case was submitted, the sole issue before the trial court was whether to recognize a way of necessity by implied grant on the road to the east of Beaver Creek.
The trial court’s final judgment concluded that an “implied easement of necessity” existed on the road to the east of Beaver Creek because the road was “apparent, continuous, and in existence at the time of the partition.” As the majority notes, only Mrs. Daniel has appealed. What the majority fails to note, however, is that only Mrs. Daniel has standing to appeal since she is the only property owner to the east of Beaver Creek who has not voluntarily granted an easement.
Discussion
Under Texas law, if a grantor seeks an easement by necessity over a part of the land she has conveyed, she seeks a way of necessity by implied reservation. If, on the other hand, a grantee seeks an easement by necessity over lands once owned by a common grantor but conveyed to third parties, he seeks a way of necessity by implied grant. See, e.g., Drye v. Eagle Rock Ranch, Inc., 364 S.W.2d 196, 205-09 (Tex.1962). The majority holds that the requirements for these two types of ways of necessity differ. I disagree.
In Drye, the supreme court recognized that the requirements for a way of necessity by implied reservation are three-fold:
1. The use must have been in existence and apparent at the time of the grant;
2. The use must have been continuous at the time of the grant such that it can *115be inferred that the parties intended that its use pass by the grant; and
3. The use must be necessary to the use of the dominant estate.
Drye, 364 S.W.2d at 208-09. With respect to the third prong, the court reaffirmed its earlier holdings in Duff v. Matthews, 158 Tex. 333, 311 S.W.2d 637 (1958), and Othen v. Rosier, 148 Tex. 485, 226 S.W.2d 622 (1950), that Texas follows the doctrine “strict necessity” in cases involving ways of necessity by implied reservation. However, because the proposed easement in Drye failed to meet other prerequisites, the Drye Court stated that it need not decide the question of whether strict necessity was required in cases involving ways of necessity by implied grant. Drye, 364 S.W.2d at 208-09. This question was not finally resolved until Bickler v. Bickler, 403 S.W.2d 354, 357 (Tex.1966), and then only implicitly. See Bickler, 403 S.W.2d at 359 (distinguishing Duff and Othen, the leading way of necessity by implied reservation cases, on their facts and not because they involved ways of necessity by implied reservation, rather than grant).
In any event, regardless of whether a particular case involves a way of necessity by implied reservation or by implied grant, one principle is crystal clear: If a party has a legal means of access to his property, he is not entitled to a way of necessity. Bickler, 403 S.W.2d at 359 (because Ralph Bickler did not have a legal means of access to his property, an easement over Max Bidder’s property was “still necessary”); id. (distinguishing Duff because the proof demonstrated that the plaintiff had “another way to plaintiffs lot which he had a legal right to use”);2 id. (distinguishing Othen because the plaintiff failed “to discharge his burden of proving that he had no other way of access”); Parker v. Bains, 194 S.W.2d 569, 577 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1946, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (reversing trial court’s grant of two ways of necessity). This is true even if, because of natural barriers, the existing legal means of access does not provide vehicular access to all parts of the landowner’s property. See Duff, 311 S.W.2d at 642-43 (way of necessity on the “lower road” precluded because plaintiffs had legal access to their property via the “upper road” even though the upper road did not provide vehicular access to the lakefront portion of the plaintiffs’ lots because of an intervening bluff). Curiously, while the majority recognizes this principle and even cites Bickler, Drye, Duff, and Parker, it completely disregards it in applying the law to the material undisputed facts before us.
Conclusion
In this ease, as in Duff, the evidence conclusively establishes that the Foxes have a legal means of access to their property — the road to the west of Beaver Creek. As a matter of law, therefore, they cannot show the degree of necessity required for a way of necessity by implied grant on the road to the east of Beaver Creek. Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s judgment and render judgment declaring that the Foxes are not entitled to a way of necessity on the road to the east of Beaver Creek.

. It appears that Duff involved a way of necessity by implied grant as to Pfeiffer and a way of necessity by implied reservation as to Matthews. See Duff, 311 S.W.2d at 641-43. In both situations, however, the court held that a way of necessity was precluded by the existing legal access along the upper road. Id.