Strollo v. Iannantuoni

734 A.2d 144 (1999)

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

Ps' land historically had been used solely for agricultural pursuits. Ps allege that they 'do not have an unobstructed, open or reliable means of ingress or egress to their property except over Fs' property which fronts on Marion Road, and without such access their property is effectively landlocked.' The trial court found that Ps were considering a major alteration in their property's use. Ps wanted to put a subdivision on the land. Ps contend that this requires a fifty-foot wide easement to do so. The court considered the surrounding circumstances, the nature of the land, and the conduct of the parties, and balanced the equities present in this case. The trial court held it is not reasonably essential to grant a 50-foot easement simply to accommodate the Ps' desire to profit from a potential subdivision. It held that the creation of such a right-of-way would work a serious inequity on Ds. The court granted Ps a 20-foot easement and Ps appealed.