Please update your links! Our new website url is http://masglp.olemiss.edu . This old website will soon cease to exist!

Water Log 29.1, May, 2009

Mississippi Court of Appeals Denies Easement Requests

Evanna Plantation, Inc., v. Thomas, 999 So. 2d 442 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).

Jonathan Proctor, 2010 J.D. Candidate, University of Mississippi School of Law

The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court ruling denying Plaintiffs’ requests for various easements over either of Defendants’ two private roads. Finding no clear error in the trial court’s decision that the Plaintiffs failed to provide satisfactory evidence necessary to obtain an express easement, an easement by necessity, or a prescriptive easement, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Background
Evanna Plantation, Inc., and the David Klaus Trust, for which David Klaus served as president and trustee, respectively, jointly owned a 100-acre parcel of land in Sharkey County, MS. Klaus sought an easement over either Ernest or Camille Thomas’ private roads, arguing these roads constitute the only practical ways to traverse over the naturally moving water body known as “Coon Bayou” to access his 100-acre property.1 The Bayou creates a natural barrier to Klaus’ property, which is bordered to the east by Ernest Thomas’ property and to the south by that of Camille Thomas.

Specifically, Evanna Plantation, Inc. claimed a prescriptive easement over a private road on Ernest Thomas’ property, in addition to an easement by necessity and/or a prescriptive easement over a private road on Camille Thomas’ property. Con­ currently, the David Klaus Trust claimed a prescriptive easement over Camille Thomas’ road and an express easement, easement by necessity, and prescriptive easement across Ernest Thomas’ road. Additionally, a lessor, Sabill Farms, sought compensatory damages, including $21,000 for alleged lost rental opportunities.2

The Sharkey County Chancery Court denied all easement claims, rejected all requests for damages, and declined to grant an injunction that would prevent either Thomas from blocking access. Arguing that the trial court erred in its judgment, Evanna Plantation, Inc., and the David Klaus Trust appealed.

Appellate Court Upholds Denial of Easement Requests
Unless the ruling “was manifestly wrong, clearly erroneous, or applied the wrong legal standard,” the judgment must stand.3 Though Evanna Plantation, Inc., and the David Klaus Trust brought separate easement claims, the court declined to review each claim as if brought by individual parties since all claims arose from David Klaus’ involvement. Focusing on the types of easements sought, the Court of Appeals looked for clear error in the trial court’s ruling.

Express Easement
An express easement typically is created by recording proof of an easement at the appropriate county land records office. However, Appellants offered no evidence of a recorded easement for either property. Furthermore, Appellants’ express easement claim incorrectly relied on a prescriptive easement case, Dieck v. Landry.4 In light of Appellants’ failure to cite any authority supporting the express easement contention, the appellate court decided that the claim was procedurally barred and the trial court therefore correctly denied this claim.

Easement by Necessity
When a portion of land cannot be accessed except by crossing another’s property, an owner may seek an easement by necessity. The appellate court stated that the determining factor is “whether an alternative would involve disproportionate expense and inconvenience.”5 According to the court, for the purposes of an easement by necessity, a “disproportionate ex­ pense” would occur when the alternative’s cost would exceed the value of the property.6 Though Appellants discussed the merits of bridges and culverts, they offered no evidence as to the prospective costs of these alternatives. Additionally, Appellants did not present estimates of the value of the 100-acre parcel. Without this information, the trial court declared that it found itself unable to determine whether these alternatives would cause a “disproportionate expense.” The Court of Appeals found no clear error in that judgment.

Prescriptive Easement
A party claiming a prescriptive easement must satisfy the same burden as that required for proving adverse possession. Among other factors, the claiming party’s use of the property must be hostile and exclusive.7 Klaus used the private roads with the permission of both Ernest and Camille Thomas, as well as that of the previous owners. The Court restated the rather obvious principle that permissive use cannot constitute hostility.

Furthermore, Klaus failed to meet the exclusive use requirement for obtaining a prescriptive easement. Ac­ cord­ ing to the court, Klaus did not present any evidence to suggest that Evanna Plantation, Inc., and the David Klaus Trust ever intended to “use the land as [their] own to the exclusion of all others.”8 Based on this failure to meet the requirements of a prescriptive easement, the Court of Appeals could find no clear error in the trial court’s ruling.

Conclusion
In light of the insufficient evidence in support of the easement allegations of Evanna Plantation, Inc., and the David Klaus Trust, the Court of Appeals found no clear error in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Thomas’s retained the right to refuse access across their land to the property in question.

Endnotes:
1.   Evanna Plantation, Inc., v. Thomas, 999 So. 2d 442 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009).
2.   Id. at 445.
3.   Id. (citing Biddix v. McConnell, 911 So. 2d 468, 474 (Miss. 2005)).
4.   796 So. 2d 1004 (Miss. 2001).
5.   Evanna Plantation, Inc., 999 So. 2d at 446 (citing Swan v. Hill, 855 So. 2d 459, 464 (Miss. Ct. App. 2003)).
6.   Evanna Plantation, Inc., 999 So. 2d at 446
7.   Id. at 447 (citing Biddix, 911 So. 2d at 475) (“To acquire [a]...prescriptive easement the claimant must show that the possession was: (1) open, notorious, and visible; (2) hostile; (3) under claim of ownership; (4) exclusive; (5) peaceful; and (6) continuous and uninterrupted for ten years.”).
8.   Evanna Plantation, Inc., 999 So. 2d at 447(citing Biddix, 911 So. 2d at 476).

Recommended citation: Jonathan Proctor, Mississippi Court of Appeals Denies Easement Requests, 29:1 Water Log 4 (2009).

University of Mississippi