Canali v. Satre

688 N.E. 2d 351(1997)

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

P filed a complaint asserting that he had acquired an 'easement of necessity by implication' to a driveway located on D’s adjacent property. D counterclaimed to quiet title. The parcels are adjoining tracts. Previously, William and Ida Schultz owned the subject properties, 5 parcels in all. Between 1931 and 1936, three parcels were conveyed to separate purchasers: parcel A in 1931, parcel B in 1932, and parcel C in July 1936. On December 9, 1936, William Schultz conveyed parcel D, retaining parcel E for himself until it was sold in 1941. Parcel E was landlocked at the time Schultz conveyed parcel D. The trial court found that at the time of the severance of the two properties in 1936, there was no evidence or claim that the driveway was the sole method of ingress and egress. The court believed P bought the parcel as is from the bankruptcy court and must take it as he found it, with or without access, and held that there had been no proof that this was a property subject to an easement by necessity. On appeal, P contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.