Hinrichs v. Melton

The trial court properly exercised its discretion to decree an easement by necessity benefitting a landlocked parcel over a route that caused the least disruption to the adjoining owners’ use of their properties.  A judgment granting a landlocked parcel’s owner an easement by necessity over neighboring properties to a road is affirmed.  For such an easement to be declared it is not necessary for the landlocked owner to show that he used the easement in the past.  Nor is the court required to allow the landlocked owner the path to a road that is most direct or easiest for him to improve.  Here, the trial court properly exercised its discretion to decree an easement over a path that caused the least disruption to the adjoining owners’ use of their properties.  The Fifth Amendment does not apply to or constrain a court in awarding an easement by necessity.

California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 (Gilbert, P.J.); May 3, 2017; 2017 WL 1684203

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s