On October 15, 2024, the Mississippi Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Word v. U.S. Bank. The question in that case was whether U.S. Bank was entitled to an “easement by necessity” across the land owned by William Word.

The background facts

Word and U.S. Bank own adjoining parcels of land that were once part of the same larger tract of land owned by Zeno Griffin.

The parcel that Word now owns was severed from Griffin’s larger land tract in 1996. Later, Word purchased that parcel in 2016.

The parcel that U.S. Bank now owns was severed from Griffin’s larger land tract in 1997. That tract became “landlocked” at that time with no direct access to a road, the nearest of which was a state highway. U.S. Bank later acquired that parcel in 2019.

U.S. Bank filed suit against Word and asked that the chancery court rule that U.S. Bank was entitled to an easement by necessity across Word’s land. Such an easement would then give U.S. Bank access to the highway. (Note: Easement by necessity is sometimes referred to as easement by implication.)

The Chancery Court decision - - U.S. Bank gets an initial victory

Following his analysis of the parties’ evidence and relevant case law, the chancellor held that U.S. Bank had sufficiently proved its entitlement to an easement by necessity across Word’s property. As a result, the chancellor granted U.S. Bank’s requested relief.

Aggrieved, Word appealed.

The Court of Appeals sees it differently

In its opinion, the Court of Appeals began by explaining when an easement by necessity will exist:

“An easement by necessity arises by implied grant when a part of a commonly owned tract of land is severed in such a way that either portion of the property has been rendered inaccessible except by passing over the other portion or by trespassing on the lands of another.”

“An easement by necessity requires proof that:

(1) the easement is necessary;

(2) the dominant and servient estates were once part of a commonly owned parcel;

(3) the implicit right-of-way arose at the time of severance from the common owner.

To satisfy this burden, the plaintiffs must show that they possess no other means of access to their property.”

 "dominant estate" refers to the property that would benefit from an easement over the land of another, and the term "servient estate" refers to the property over which the easement would run.)

The Court of Appeals proceeded to explain:

“[O]ne who sells a parcel of land to another which is wholly surrounded by the other lands of the seller, impliedly grants a right of way to the interior lot so sold over the exterior lands retained. . . . And when one sells interior lands surrounded in part by the other lands of the seller and in part by the lands of strangers, the implied grant of a way to the interior land exists over the exterior lands of the seller.”

The facts were that Word’s land had been severed from the larger tract of the seller Griffin before U.S. Bank’s land had been severed from the same larger tract.

Thus, as the seller of the U.S. Bank tract, Griffin impliedly granted a right of way to the buyer of that tract across the remainder of Griffin’s land. Griffin could not, however, grant the buyer of that tract a right of way over Word’s land.

Panter Law Firm, PLLC

7736 Old Canton Road, Suite B

Madison, MS 39110

601-607-3156