Court Opinion

ID: 9678521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:21:34.180547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:05.129457
License: Public Domain

DANIEL E. SCOTT, Judge,
concurring in result.
I agree in part with each of the other opinions, and that we should reverse and remand as opposed to reversing outright.
Not all cases express a requirement to prove a common owner’s prior use, which is part of what we are calling the third element of an implied easement claim, and is the basis for reversal under Judge Bur-rell’s opinion.1 If we are reversing the judgment based on a more demanding of several reported legal standards,2 as I believe we are, we should remand to give Respondent a chance to meet such standard, unless doing so would be futile.
Ultimately, I believe remand is proper because I agree with Judge Rahmeyer (although for slightly different reasons) that Respondent otherwise proved his claim - ie., what we are calling the first, second, and fourth elements, each of which Appellant also has attacked on appeal.3 Thus, I would concur in the result.

. Such include the case cited and relied on by Respondents (Full Gospel Fellowship v. Stockwell, 938 S.W.2d 677, 678 (Mo.App.1997)), and others, including at least one by this court. See Main Street Feeds, Inc. v. Hall, 975 S.W.2d 227, 234 n. 6 (Mo.App.1998).

. Given our decision to remand, I agree with applying the more stringent standard and reversing the judgment. The "clear and convincing" proof required for implied easements suggests, as I believe, that they are judicially disfavored.

.I considered Appellant's remaining challenges because if any were well-taken, such that Respondent could not prevail in any event, I think remand would be an exercise in futility, waste of judicial resources, and disservice to the parties.