Court Opinion

ID: 9678520
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:21:34.176021+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:05.128475
License: Public Domain

NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent as I believe substantial evidence supports all four of the elements necessary for an implied easement. First, I believe, in the light most favorable to the judgment, we must accept that there was a “road,” not a track commencing on Highway 32 in Strip II, crossing Strip I, and ending in the Slaughterhouse Property. The testimony of the Cedar County Assessor alone provides substantial evidence of that fact. Next, I believe we must accept as true, as the evidence indicated, that there is no ingress or egress to Respondent’s property from Highway 32 created by easement provided by Appellants after the lawsuit commenced as the testimony indicated safety and visibility problems would ensue on any access to Highway 32. Finally, there was only one access area to Highway 32 in what was the original Feese property, the road at issue here. Appellant has challenged, in his point relied on, all four elements of the implied easement. I believe substantial evidence supports each of the four elements.
Feese acquired all of the property at issue from the Masons in 1971. This would seem to satisfy the first element. Appellants, however, argue that there is no substantial evidence to find unity and subsequent separation of title because a portion of the road Respondent claims as an easement passes over the Slaughterhouse Property, which was separated from the property before Feese purchased and subdivided it. Appellants claim that Respondent must show unity of title in all of the properties over which the purported easement route passes. Appellants claim they are supported by Mawpin v. Bearden, 643 S.W.2d 860 (Mo.App. S.D.1982). In Man-pin, the easement seeker sought to establish four separate implied easement routes. Id. at 862. The easement seeker needed to travel the entire length of any of the proposed routes to reach his property. Id. at 864. The court found that all four proposed easements failed to meet the unity of title requirement because the easement seeker could not show unity of title for all of the properties over which the routes passed. Id. at 865.
Unlike the easement seeker in Mawpin, Respondent’s property is located at a point on the proposed easement route that is before the Slaughterhouse Property. Respondent, therefore, does not need to travel over the portion of the easement that continues onto the Slaughterhouse Property. Any unity of title concern which includes the Slaughterhouse Property is not at issue here. Substantial evidence supports the first element.
As to the second element, that there was an obvious benefit to the dominant estate *174and burden to the servient portion of the premises existing at the time of conveyance, Feese created nine lots but there was only one entrance on his property from the highway. The road was a benefit to the nine lots because it provided an entrance from the highway, which allowed access between the highway and the nine lots. It was a burden on Two-Bit Town, Inc.’s land because the road ran across it. Viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, the court could have found that Feese would have the only driveway on his property to access the nine lots he subdivided. The trial judge could have also believed that the entrance and road was used for access to Feese’s proposed miniature golf course. There is substantial evidence to support a finding on the second element.
Appellants contend, and the majority opinion finds, there is no evidence supporting use by the common owner in the altered condition. I disagree. At the time of Feese’s purchase of the property in 1971, the Slaughterhouse Property had been in existence for fifteen years and the road to the Slaughterhouse Property was in place. It was Feese who subdivided the property into nine lots, three of which are now owned by Respondent. It was Feese who created a plat, even though it was not filed. Feese initially sold Lots 7, 8, and 9 to Rex Arment. A reasonable inference is that Feese, or someone on his behalf, entered the property at some time to create the plat, even if it was never filed, or showed the property in order to sell it to the Arments.
Furthermore, the testimony of the Cedar County Assessor does support that Feese used the property. Although the assessor does not clarify who “they” refers to in his testimony, viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, when combined with the fact that there was only one access to the property from Highway 32, a reasonable inference is that the common owner of the property used that only road to his property. The court specifically noted, “[ajerial photographs and other pictorial exhibits clearly show the physical appearance of the roadway.” Because the roadway had been in existence for at least 50 years, which included times of common ownership, and it was clearly visible, the court had substantial evidence to conclude that the common owner used the roadway. The trial court’s judgment finding that Respondent has shown use by a common owner is supported by substantial evidence.
Finally, the last element is reasonable necessity for the easement. An absolute necessity is not required to satisfy this element. Russo v. Bruce, 263 S.W.3d 684, 687 (MoApp. S.D.2008). In this case, the trial court found that “[a]ny other ingress or egress to Highway 32, besides the two entrances at either end of the roadway, is not feasible or practical, and presents an undue burden on [Respondent’s] access to his property.” This leaves Respondent with two ways to access his property: using the entrance and road across Appellants’ property or using the entrance and road across the Slaughterhouse Property. Respondent testified that the use of the entrance on the Slaughterhouse Property caused safety and visibility problems. In Full Gos-pel Fellowship v. Stockwell, 938 S.W.2d 677 (MoApp. E.D.1997), the court stated, “[t]he trial judge could also find the element of necessity because any alternate route to the highway would be less safe.” Id. at 678. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, Respondent has demonstrated reasonable necessity.
I see no need to remand the case for a trial to produce direct proof that the roadway was used by the common owner and *175would find there is substantial evidence to support the trial judge’s judgment granting an implied easement across Appellants’ property and affirm the judgment.