Fike v. Shelton
| Docket Number: | 2002-CA-00668-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Date: 10-07-2003 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Easement by necessity - Standing - Section 65-7-201 - Utility easement - Compensation Judge(s) Concurring: McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., THOMAS, IRVING, MYERS AND GRIFFIS, JJ. Dissenting Author : LEE, J. Dissent Joined By : BRIDGES, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-23-2002 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Edward G. Cortright, Jr. Disposition: EASEMENT BY NECESSITY |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | John D. Fike |
John D. Fike (pro se) |
||
| Appellee: | James B. Shelton, III | JOHN HINTON DOWNEY |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Real property - Easement by necessity - Standing - Section 65-7-201 - Utility easement - Compensation |
| Summary of the Facts: | James Shelton, III filed a complaint for establishment of an easement. Shelton named John Fike, the Hinds County Board of Supervisors and any parties interested in the property formerly owned by Levi Sturgis, Sr. as defendants. Shelton and Fike agreed to a bifurcated hearing in which the court would first rule as to whether Shelton was entitled to an easement. In the first hearing, the court held that Shelton was entitled to an easement by necessity across the Fike and Sturgis properties. At the second hearing, the court ordered that the easement should be fifty feet wide. The ditches, shoulders and width of the road were limited to twenty-five feet with the remaining width to be used for utilities and making repairs. Fike appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Easement by necessity Fike argues that the court erred in awarding an easement by necessity, because Shelton was given permission from adjoining landowners to access his property. An easement by necessity arises by operation of law when part of a commonly-owned tract of land is severed in a way that renders either portion of the property inaccessible except by passing over the other portion or by trespassing on the lands of another. The party asserting the right to an easement must demonstrate strict necessity and is required to prove there is no other means of access. Access from the Shelton property to the Robinson property was limited to foot travel and no permission for motorized travel was given. Access from the Berry property was by oral permission and was in the form of a license which is revocable at will. The limited scope of permission granted to Shelton by Robinson and Berry is not sufficient to extinguish his right to an easement by necessity. Issue 2: Standing Fike argues that Shelton lacked standing to bring suit because he failed to exhaust all administrative remedies as required by section 65-7-201. Section 65-7-201 does not apply to an easement by necessity because it requires the petitioner to compensate the landowner for the taking of his land. Shelton was not required to petition the Hinds County Board of Supervisors under section 65-7-201 because he was entitled to an easement by necessity. Issue 3: Utility easement Fike argues that the chancellor erred in awarding Shelton a fifty foot easement and that the location of the easement has put an undue burden on the use and enjoyment of his land. The court did not err in granting a fifty-foot easement. The court limited the width of the easement for purposes of ingress and egress to twenty-five feet. The remaining twenty-five feet of the easement was to be used solely for utility accommodation and to give Shelton room to bring equipment in to construct and repair the road. Furthermore, if Shelton decides to build a second residence on the property the Hinds County Planning Commission would require a fifty foot easement. Fike also argues that the location of the easement unduly interferes with the use and enjoyment of his property. However, if the easement is located where Fike proposes, Shelton would be required to install at least two large culverts in drainage ways as well as a large culvert in the creek. Issue 4: Compensation Fike argues that compensation should be awarded for encumbering his land with an easement because it results in a taking of his property. If a landowner is entitled to an easement by necessity, section 65-7-201 does not apply and compensation for the taking should be denied. Therefore, the court did not err in refusing to award Fike compensation for the easement. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
