This is the case of Francini v. Goodspeed Airport,LLC

Fact:

Judgment:

Issue:

Holding:

General Analysis

Applied Analysis

Francini v. Goodspeed Airport, LLC 134 A.3d 1278 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016) William Francini owned a parcel of land in East Haddam, Connecticut. The only access from Francini's land to a public high- way was over an abutting property owned by Goodspeed Airport, LLC. Goodspeed acquired its land in 1999 under a warranty deed subject to a right-of-way easement for Francini, as well as several of Francini's neighbors, each of whom also owned land abutting Goodspeed's property. In 2001, Goodspeed entered into an agreement with several of Francini's neighbors, who also shared the right-of-way across defendant's property, to allow them to improve the right-of-way by installing and maintaining a utility distribution system under the existing easement. As a result, a commercial utility system was constructed under the existing right-of-way, which was used to provide electricity to Francini's neighbors. Each of the neighbors paid Goodspeed $7,500 for the addition of the utility ease- ment to the right-of-way. Francini likewise offered to pay Goodspeed $7,500 for use of the utility easement, but Goodspeed demanded that Francini not only pay $7,500, but also that he grant it the authority to move the location of the easement at will. (It is not clear from the facts presented in the opinion why Goodspeed treated Francini differently from his neighbors or why Goodspeed would desire to retain the right to move the location of the easement, but Goodspeed did both.) Francini refused the additional terms, and he and Goodspeed never reached an agreement. Without the utility easement, Francini's property was unable to connect to commercial electric service. Instead, a genera- tor powered his house. The generator was insufficient, though, to run and maintain some of Francini's basic requirements, like powering security devices and running a refrigerator. Moreover, the generator was not equipped to turn on automatically in the event of a flood. In 2011, Francini sued Goodspeed seeking an easement by necessity for access to commercial utilities across the same right-of-way that he already owned and that already provided his neighbors with commercial electric power. Goodspeed filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that easements by necessity could not be granted for anything other than physical access to landlocked parcels. The trial court granted Goodspeed's motion. Francini appealed. The question of whether an easement by necessity could be granted for access to utility services rather than physical access had not yet been addressed by any Connecticut appellate court. Lavery, Judge incapable of being put to profitable use." Thomas v. Primus, The common-law easement by necessity creates an implied ser- 84 A.3d 916 (App. Ct. Conn. 2014). Accordingly, the easement vitude that burdens one piece of property, the servient estate, for is based on the beliefs that parties do not intend to effectuate the benefit of another, the dominant estate, to enable the normal a conveyance that would render the land useless . . . and that "use and enjoyment of the [benefited] property." In the classic parties naturally intend to convey whatever rights are necessary example, "an easement by necessity will be imposed where a for the use and enjoyment of the land conveyed. . . . Therefore, conveyance by the grantor leaves the grantee with a parcel inac- the imposition of an easement by necessity upon the burdened cessible save over the lands of the grantor, or where the grantor estate is justified by two partnering rationales, the presumed n adjoining parcel which he can reach only through the intent of the parties to the conveyance and general public policy.lands conveyed to the grantee.\" Hollywyle Assn, Inc. v. Hollister, 324 A.2d 247 (Sup. Ct. Conn. 1973). In such cases, the element of necessity lies in the grantee's inability to use his property ben- eficially because he lacks physical access to it, \"[or the law will not presume, that it was the intention of the parties, that one should convey land to the other, in such manner that the grantee could derive no benefit from the conveyance; nor that he should so convey a portion as to deprive himself of the enjoyment of the remainder.\" Robinson v. Clapp, 32 A. 939 (Sup. Ct. Conn. 1895). In other words, \"the necessity does not create the way, but merely furnishes evidence as to the real intention of the parties\"; 121.; because courts ascribe to the parties a ctitious intent presumably, if the parties actually intended there to be an ease- ment, they would have said so in the written grantbased on \"the public policy that no land should be left inaccessible or Today, we conclude that easements by necessity may provide not only physical access to landlocked property, but a property landlocked from commercial utilities may likewise receive an easement by necessity to access utility services. Easements by necessity are not artifacts of a more ancient era and must serve their intended purpose, to render land useful, in the present day as the benecial use of land conforms to modern innovations and needs. This follows from the general rule that the need con- stituting the necessity that implies an easement by necessity may change over time. In fact, in the context of a granted right-of- way, the easement's owner may use the easement for all pur- poses consistent with the reasonable use of the benefited land and is not limited to using the easement for only those purposes that existed at the time the benefited and burdened properties were created. We therefore reject the defendant's argument that easements by necessity may be granted only for physical access to landlocked property simply because no such easement has yet been recognized. To \"deny [property owners] such right would be to stop to some extent the wheels of progress, and invention, and finally make residence in the country more and more unde- sirable and less endurable.\" Dowgiel v. Reid, 59 A.2d 115 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 1948). In our view, the legal justifications underlying easements by necessity, intent and public policy, support extending the doc- trine to include access to utilities for properties landlocked from them. Utilities are so obviously necessary for the reasonable use and enjoyment of all types of property that the law will assume that parties to a land conveyance intend to convey whatever is necessary to ensure a property's access to utilities in the same way that the law presumes the parties intended to convey an easement for physical access. Accordingly, we conclude that ac- cess to utilities is reasonably necessary to the reasonable use and enjoyment of property, especially, as is the case here, residential property. . . . To deny a residence access to utilities would, prac- tically speaking, deny use of that property as a residence. As further support, under the approach adopted by the Re- statement (Third) of Property, Servitudes, a property that is landlocked from commercial electricity enjoys an implied ease- ment by necessity for utility services. The Restatement (Third), itself adopted eighteen years ago, explains that \"the increasing dependence in recent years on electricity and telephone service, delivered through overland cables, justify the conclusion that implied servitudes by necessity will be recognized for those pur- poses.\" By including access to commercial electricity within the easement by necessity, the Restatement (Third) recognizes that \"'[n]ecessary' rights are not limited to those essential to enjoy- ment of the property, but include those which are reasonably re- quired to make effective use of the property.\" Therefore, because electricity is essential to daily life and is reasonably required to make effective use of property, the easement by necessity in- cludes not only physical access to landlocked property, but also access to utilities for properties landlocked from utilities. This decision honors both the principles underlying the easement by necessity and the fundamental actualities of modern life. *** The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to deny the defendant's motion for summary judgment and for further proceedings according to law