The implied easement is based on the theory that without it the grantor or the grantee cannot make use of his land and that whenever one conveys property he includes in the conveyance whatever is necessary for its beneficial use and enjoyment and retains whatever is necessary for the use and enjoyment of the land retained.
In 1996, appellants brought an action to quiet title, claiming a fee interest in a 20 foot tract of land that bisected the front and back parcel with access to a public road. Appellees counter-claimed, arguing they had a possessory interest by prescription. After two appeals, the trial court determined appellees had an easement in the tract. Appellant's sought review on several grounds.
Did the appellees have an easement in the track of land?
The Court affirmed the judgment holding that the appellants possessed an implied easement to a tract of land where the original conveyors intended to retain an easement over the roadway so the front parcel could continue to be conveniently farmed. Based on the original deed, the roadway was in existence at the time and was a permanent fixture; thus, an implied easement was established. Even if it did not exist, a prescriptive easement existed where appellees and their predecessors in interest had utilized the roadway to fully access their farm for more than 21 years.