Court Opinion

ID: 9793211
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:44:27.774073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:56.980962
License: Public Domain

PAYNE, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I feel the majority has read more into the deed than the law allows. The 1973 warranty deed by which appellant received title to his tract was signed by appellees and provides for “rights of ingress and egress.” There is no mention in the deed of a particular road or way, nor is there mention of a servient estate supporting the easement. Appellees’ warranty deed is similarly worded. There is no easement reserved for appellant in appellees’ deed. Appellant argues and the majority agrees that the words “rights of ingress and egress” are certain and definite and that they refer to a specific dirt road across appellees’ tract to the middle road. I agree that no particular words of grant are necessary to create an easement. The words used, however, must clearly show the intention to grant an easement. To be sufficient the language must be certain and definite in its terms. See Kennedy v. Bond, 80 N.M. 734, 460 P.2d 809 (1969); State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Dannevik, 79 N.M. 630, 447 P.2d 510 (1968); Dyer v. Compere, 41 N.M. 716, 73 P.2d 1356 (1937). It is unclear if the warranty deed grants appellant the right to enter and return from his own land or appellees’ land, or even some third party’s land; the warranty deed is not specific or definite on its face. It does not mention any particular road but is only a general statement used in the deeds of all the heirs whether or not they were located next to a public road or other right-of-way. “The general rule is, . . that no right in a way, which has been used during the unity of possession, will pass upon the severance of the tenements, unless proper terms are employed in the conveyance to show an intention to create the right de novo.” Michelet v. Cole, 20 N.M. 357, 362, 149 P. 310, 311 (1915). In the case of Hughes v. Lippincott, 56 N.M. 473, 245 P.2d 390 (1952), the Court held that where the description of the property conveyed designates a road or way as a boundary, and the fee to the way is in the grantor, then an easement passes to the grantee. The law is jealous of easement claims, and the burden is on the party asserting such a claim to prove it clearly. This he must do by showing a grant conferring an easement in express terms, or by necessary implication. Davis v. Gowen, 83 Idaho 204, 360 P.2d 403 (1961); Zentner v. Fiorentino, 52 A.D.2d 1036, 384 N.Y.S.2d 297 (1976). The warranty deed does not by its recitation of right of ingress and egress create an easement. The deed does not show the intent to create an easement on appellees’ land. The deficiencies of the deed defeat the claim of an easement by an express grant. Appellant’s second claim is that an easement by implication was created. Although the majority does not discuss this theory, it too would be insufficient to support appellant’s claim. The requirements for creating an easement by implication are (1) that a separation of the title occur; (2) that the history of the claimed easement has run for a period sufficient to demonstrate its permanency; and (3) that the use of the easement be reasonably necessary for the full enjoyment of the grant. Venegas v. Luby, 49 N.M. 381, 164 P.2d 584 (1945). I feel appellant failed to carry the burden of showing reasonable necessity. Originally, the test was one of absolute or strict necessity. Douglass v. Lehman, 62 App.D.C. 264, 66 F.2d 790 (D.C.Cir.1933). If any alternative was available to an easement claimant, no easement would be found. This requirement of absolute necessity has been moderated in most jurisdictions to that of reasonable necessity. The test of necessity in New Mexico is whether the party claiming the easement could, through the reasonable expenditure of labor or money, create an alternative avenue for ingress and egress on his own estate. In the Venegas case, we discussed reasonable necessity and stated: “The basis for an easement by implication must be reasonable necessity, as distinguished from mere convenience . . . .” 49 N.M. at 386-87, 164 P.2d at 587. The record shows that appellant’s land is bounded on the south by a public road. Appellant claims that creating access through his own land would be too expensive, in terms of land use and monetary expenditure. Appellant is not entitled to the easiest or most convenient route if he has an alternative. Appellant presented his evidence to the court and failed to prove his claim of an easement by implication. On the basis of the record presented here, I can find no error. Appellant’s third theory was that of easement by necessity which would also fall by the analysis above. For the reasons set forth, I must respectfully dissent. FEDERICI, J., concurs.