An exclusive implied easement which, for all practical purposes, amounts to fee title cannot be justified or granted unless: 1) the encroachment is “de minimis” or 2) the easement is necessary to protect the health or safety of the public or for essential utility purposes. Here, a wall erected on what the prior owner of both adjoining lots thought was the boundry line did not create an implied easement for the enlarged lot owner’s exclusive use.  However, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the enlarged lot owner an equitable easement.  Such an easement may be awarded if (1) the trespass was innocent, (2) the adjoining owner will not be irreparably injured, and (3) the hardship to the trespasser is grossly disproportionate to the hardship to the true owner of the disputed property.  Although equitable easements are disfavored because they operate, in effect, as private eminent domain, depriving an owner of his property, the evidence here supported all three required elements of such an easement, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the equitable easement.