A judgment granting a landlocked parcel’s owner an easement by necessity over neighboring properties to a road is affirmed. For such an easement to be declared it is not necessary for the landlocked owner to show that he used the easement in the past. Nor is the court required to allow the landlocked owner the path to a road that is most direct or easiest for him to improve. Here, the trial court properly exercised its discretion to decree an easement over a path that caused the least disruption to the adjoining owners’ use of their properties. The Fifth Amendment does not apply to or constrain a court in awarding an easement by necessity.
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 6 (Gilbert, P.J.); May 3, 2017; 2017 WL 1684203