Ward v. Slavecek Case Brief

Ward v. Slavecek

466 S.W.2d 91 | 1971 Tex. App. LEXIS 2638

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Takeaway

In short, this case confirms that a prior shared driveway does not create an implied easement unless continued use of it is strictly necessary; convenience and past practice are not enough.

Background

Ward and the defendants owned adjoining lots in Cleburne, each extending from Wood Street to an alley. Both titles came from a common owner, who had built a driveway before 1919 approximately along the boundary between the lots to reach his garage. Ward's predecessor bought one lot in 1925; the defendants' predecessor bought the neighboring lot in 1928, built a garage, and thereafter used the existing driveway jointly with Ward's side, with the neighbor's consent.

The shared use continued until 1970, when defendants placed a metal fence on their property. Ward alleged that the fence prevented her from using the driveway and left her garage unusable. She brought the case on a theory of an easement implied from the prior common ownership. After a bench trial, the court found against Ward and entered a take-nothing judgment. Ward appealed, arguing that the evidence established an implied easement as a matter of law.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Ward established, as a matter of law, an easement implied by prior use over the driveway on defendants' property.

Holding

No. Ward did not prove the strict necessity required for an implied easement.

Reasoning

Texas recognizes an easement by implication in limited circumstances, including where a common owner used an apparent existing way before severing the properties. But the claimed easement must be strictly necessary to the use of the estate claiming the benefit, not merely convenient or historically useful.

The trial court found that an open alley lay at the west end of Ward's lot and was accessible to her. Ward did not challenge that finding on appeal, and the record contained evidence that the alley could provide access to her garage and had been used for that purpose in the past.

The evidence also supported a finding that a clear space of approximately nine to nine and one-half feet remained between the metal fence and Ward's house. That space was sufficient for an automobile to travel from Wood Street to Ward's garage. Thus, the fence did not establish that use of defendants' portion of the former shared driveway was indispensable.

Because alternative access existed and the evidence supported the trial court's express and implied findings on necessity, Ward could not establish strict necessity as a matter of law. The appellate court therefore sustained the judgment rejecting the claimed implied easement.