Emily owns a parcel of land that she divides into two lots: Lot A, where she builds her home, and Lot B, which includes a garden. Lot B is landlocked and can only be accessed by crossing through Lot C, owned by Frank. Emily transfers Lot B to Grace but does not grant an easement over Lot C. Grace begins using a path through Lot C to access her garden. Based on principles of implied easements, which of the following is most likely true?
Grace does not have the right to use the path through Lot C since no easement was granted.
Grace has an express easement through the historical use of the lot C path.
Grace has an implied easement to access Lot B through Lot C because it is necessary for enjoying her property.
Grace needs to obtain a new easement agreement from Frank for continued access to Lot B.
Grace has an implied easement to access Lot B because the easement is necessary for the reasonable use of her landlocked property. The use is continuous, apparent, and necessary, fulfilling the requirements for an easement by implication. Other options may incorrectly suggest that express permission is required or that continued access necessitates a new agreement.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is an implied easement?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does it mean for a property to be landlocked?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the requirements for an easement by implication?