HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY V. FIELDS
928 S.W.2d 886 (1996)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over an implied visible easement.
FACTS: Carl Nelson owned property and constructed a house in 1967. The only public road
providing access to the house was located on the south side of the property. The house was
designed with a basement garage located on the north side of the house. This required a
driveway that circled around the house to reach the garage. When Nelson died he left his
property to the Shriners Hospital. The Hospital subdivided the property and sold the
unimproved land to Hillside (P); this included nearly all the land on which the driveway was
located. The title documents clearly expressly reserved an easement for the use of the
retained residential lot. The easement listed in the deed did not fully correspond with the
location of the driveway. Shriners then sold the house to Fields (D). In 1992, P filed a
suit against D for trespass and ejectment. D counterclaimed seeking a declaratory judgment
that he had an implied easement across the disputed portion of the driveway. P got a summary
judgment. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment