Burnette v. Caplan

ANDREWS, Presiding Judge.

Sarah Burnette and other family members (collectively “Burnette”) appeal from the trial court’s order holding that Eva Caplan had an implied easement of necessity over Burnette’s property. Because the record shows that no servient or dominant estates were created when the original tract of land was divided, the trial court erred in finding there was an implied easement. Accordingly, we reverse.

This case arose when Caplan filed a petition for declaratory judgment, injunction, and damages, after Burnette informed her that she intended to close off the road which Caplan…