Implied easement does not cease to exist when it becomes unnecessary for enjoyment of dominant estate.(Recent Court Decisions)

When a landowner sold a parcel accessible only by a private road located on his retained land, an implied easement to use the road arose in favor of the severed parcel and continued to exist even when the parcel became accessible by other means, according to the Alaska Supreme Court.

Lee Williams and Larry Fagnani own adjoining parcels that were originally part of one homestead settled by Charles Harrison in 1959. In 1960, to obtain access to the nearest public road, Harrison constructed a private road across his land, from what is now Williams's property through a part of Fagnani's parcel. In 2002, Fagnani asserted exclusive ownership over the section of the road located on his land, and when Williams would not sign a written easement agreement, Fagnani prohibited him from using the road. Williams sued for access, arguing, among other things, that he was entitled to an implied easement across Fagnani's property.

Under Alaska common law, an implied easement arises when there is an apparent, continuous quasi-easement in existence when a parcel is sold that is reasonably necessary for its enjoyment. Fagnani argued that there was no quasi-easement when Harrison originally severed and sold Williams's parcel in 1964 and that if there was, the easement no longer existed when Williams bought the property in 2000 because it was then accessible through other means.

The trial court agreed with Fagnani, concluding that Williams had no implied easement over the road because his parcel was no longer landlocked. Williams appealed.

The state supreme court ruled that Williams was entitled to an implied easement over the private road. The court first noted that Harrison created a quasi-easement when he used one part of his land for the benefit of another ...