Easement

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: FAWD, LLC, v. Bernadette R. Fisher Trust, et al.,

Case No.: 2020AP1074

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

Focus: Easement

FAWD, LLC, appeals the circuit court’s dismissal of its claims for entitlement to an easement. Specifically, FAWD claims that the court erred by determining that it was not was entitled to an easement of necessity or an easement by implication (or both) in order to provide driveway access and utility service to its landlocked property over adjoining property owned by Steven and Lori Lins (the Linses), and then across the Bernadette R. Fisher Trust (the Fisher Trust) property that adjoined the Linses’ property.

The circuit court dismissed FAWD’s claims upon the Linses’ motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the severance of FAWD’s property from Government Lot six in 1944 did not create the landlocked condition as to Government Lot five, as the entirety of Government Lot six had already been severed from the entirety of Government Lot five in 1932. Under such circumstances, FAWD failed to meet one of the elements for an easement of necessity—common ownership of the proposed servient and dominant estates at the time of the severance that created the landlocked condition. Additionally, the court determined that FAWD had not shown any evidence of a prior use of a pathway which continued so long and was so obvious or manifest as to show it was meant to be permanent, thus defeating its claim for an easement by implication. We agree with the court’s conclusions and affirm.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.