Birchwood Land Company, Llc. v. Krizan

115 A.3d 1009 (2015)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

In June 1982, D purchased a vacant and landlocked parcel for $3000 from the Town of Essex. D acquired by law an implied access easement over the portion of the adjacent parcel depicted on the plat and now owned by P. This is the sole means of access to her property. Without frontage on a public road or access to utilities and other related infrastructure, D's property was undevelopable. In the thirty years of ownership, she had made no effort to develop her property. In December 2002, P purchased the land surrounding D's parcel to the east, south, and west, including the fee simple ownership of the strip of land on which D's access easement is located. D obtained approval to develop its property, including the construction and extension of Tanglewood Drive and the installation of water, sewer, and electrical lines, and other related infrastructure. D's property was not included in the development approval. As part of its development, P extended road access and water and sewer line connections to D's property. P completed the improvements, and D immediately notified the Town of her intent to develop her property. The Town increased the assessed value of D's parcel from $10,800 to $92,700. The fair market value is no less than $117,000. P calculated D's proportionate share of expenses for the construction and extension of Tanglewood Drive and related infrastructure, not including the $2405 water and sewer connection cost, at $50,100. D initially expressed interest in reimbursing Birchwood for the cost of extending the sewer and water connections to her property but refused to contribute to the road and other infrastructure improvements. P sued D alleging that D was unjustly enriched by the creation of the public road access to her lot and should be required to bear a proportionate cost of the construction. D filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Eventually, the court granted D's motion to dismiss. P appealed. P claims that it is entitled to restitution for the improvements.