[MM_Access_Decision access='false']

“[W]here a person has heretofore granted or hereafter grants lands to which there is no accessible right-of way except over her or his land, or has heretofore retained or hereafter retains land which is inaccessible except over the land which the person conveys. In such instances a right-of-way is presumed to have been granted or reserved.”

Subscribers To The Florida Litigation Guide Can See:

• The rest of the elements for this cause of action;
• The citations to the most recent state and federal court cases citing the cause of action;
• The statute of limitations; and
• The defenses to this cause of action.

Click Here To See A Sample Chapter From The Guide

Subscribe to The Florida Litigation Guide To Access Everything!

[/MM_Access_Decision] [MM_Access_Decision access='true']

1. “[W]here a person has heretofore granted or hereafter grants lands to which there is no accessible right-of way except over her or his land, or has heretofore retained or hereafter retains land which is inaccessible except over the land which the person conveys. In such instances a right-of-way is presumed to have been granted or reserved.”

   Hancock v. Tipton, 732 So. 2d 369, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (citation omitted).

---

FLORIDA STATE COURTS

First District: Enzor v. Rasberry, 648 So. 2d 788, 791 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Parham v. Reddick, 537 So. 2d 132, 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988).

Second District: Hancock v. Tipton, 732 So. 2d 369, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Hynes v. City of Lakeland, 451 So. 2d 505, 511 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Joyner v. Andrews, 137 So. 2d 870, 871 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).

Third District: Casteel v. Malisch, 189 So. 2d 252, 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966).

Fourth District: Goldman v. Lustig, 237 So. 3d 381, 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); PGA N. II of Fla., LLC v. Div. of Admin., State of Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 126 So. 3d 1150, 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Equestrian Club Ests. Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 949 So. 2d 347, 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Roy v. Euro-Holland Vastgoed, B. V., 404 So. 2d 410, 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Fifth District: Dupont v. Whiteside, 721 So. 2d 1259, 1261-62 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Faison v. Smith, 510 So. 2d 928, 928-29 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Dixon v. Feaster, 448 So. 2d 554, 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).

FLORIDA FEDERAL COURTS

Southern District: Tisbo v. Bellissimo, 2007 WL 9701788, *2 (S.D. Fla. July 16, 2007).

FLORIDA STATUTES: Chapter 704.01, Florida Statutes (Easements).

---

2 Defenses to Claim for Implied Way of Necessity

(1) R. Civ. P. 1.110(d) (pleading affirmative defenses), and other standard defenses. See § 1.

(2) Statute of Limitations: 95.11(3)(p), Fla. Stat. (four years).

(3) The party claiming the way of necessity has the burden of proving the elements of the claim. Goldman v. Lustig, 237 So. 3d 381, 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (citation omitted); Parham v. Reddick, 537 So. 2d 132, 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (citation omitted).

(4) “[S]overeign immunity does not bar a claim for a way of necessity pursuant to section 704.01(1), Florida Statutes.” Gulf Oil Realty Co. v. Dep’t of Transp., 685 So. 2d 1032, 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Layton, 402 So. 2d 597, 598-99 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (emphasis added).

(5) To be successful, the claimant must also prove “absolute necessity.” Goldman v. Lustig, 237 So. 3d 381, 385 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Equestrian Club Ests. Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 949 So. 2d 347, 349-50 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)(emphasis added).

(6) The claimant must show that he or she lost access to a public road that existed when the property was acquired. PGA N. II of Fla., LLC v. Div. of Admin., State of Fla. Dep’t of Transp., 126 So. 3d 1150, 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Griffin v. North, 373 So. 2d 96, 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).

(7) “[I]n order for the owner of a dominant tenement to be entitled to a way of necessity over the servient tenement both properties must at one time have been owned by the same party (that is another way of saying that one seeking the grant of a way of necessity must show unity of ownership or common source of title).” Roy v. Euro-Holland Vastgoed, B. V., 404 So. 2d 410, 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)(emphasis added).

(8) An implied way of necessity can be extinguished by Marketable Record Title Act(MRTA.) Blanton v. City of Pinellas Park, 887 So. 2d 1224, 1231 (Fla. 2004); H & F Land, Inc. v. Panama City-Bay Cnty. Airport & Indus. Dist., 736 So. 2d 1167, 1176 (Fla. 1999).

[/MM_Access_Decision]