Court Opinion

ID: 9690416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:11:47.126639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:56.849135
License: Public Domain

ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.
¶ 56. {concurring). I write separately because I think some basics have been lost in the shuffle.
*32¶ 57. The 1961 easement is the pivotal easement in this case. That easement is an express easement granted "for purposes of ingress and egress." It still can be, and is, used for these purposes. Therefore, this case does not involve the concepts of impossibility or cessation of purpose.
¶ 58. Whether the Kostermans' use of the 1961 easement for its expressly-granted purpose remains "necessary" is irrelevant. See Niedfeldt v. Evans, 272 Wis. 362, 365, 75 N.W.2d 307 (1956) ("The rule that the right ceases with necessity has no application to ways acquired by express grant... ; a right to a way so created cannot be defeated by showing that the owners have another convenient and accessible way of going to and from their premises." (quoting 28 C.J.S., Easements, § 54, p. 718)); accord Millen v. Thomas, 201 Wis. 2d 675, 679, 550 N.W.2d 134 (Ct. App. 1996).
¶ 59. In addition, this case does not involve consent,1 abandonment,2 unity of ownership,3 or any other precept of Wisconsin's common law that could operate to extinguish or relocate an express easement. Thus, unless this court were to modify current Wisconsin law, the 1961 easement must continue under the facts of this case.
¶ 60. In a future case, when impossibility is an issue, this court may well consider whether an express easement could be terminated when the purpose becomes impossible to accomplish. Impossibility is a high standard when properly defined. Such a standard, nev*33ertheless, would address the argument that a servient estate should not be bound in perpetuity when the purpose of the easement is impossible to achieve. The impossibility standard may provide an appropriate balance between the respective rights and interests of the dominant and servient estates.
¶ 61. For the reasons stated, I respectfully concur.
¶ 62. I am authorized to state that Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON joins this concurrence.

 Guse v. Flohr, 195 Wis. 139, 147, 217 N.W 730, 733 (1928).

 Pollnow v. DNR, 88 Wis. 2d 350, 362, 276 N.W.2d 738 (1979).

 Millen v. Thomas, 201 Wis. 2d 675, 679, 550 N.W.2d 134 (Ct. App. 1996).