Background
AP & DP, LLC purchased a 32.08-acre tract near Taylorsville Lake at a 2017 auction. The property was advertised “as-is,” and an auction map depicted it as landlocked. It was surrounded by property owned by R&B Farms, property owned by Andy and Kasey Dendinger, and land belonging to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps’ property separated the tract from the lake.
AP & DP knew the tract was landlocked when it bought it. After the Dendingers declined its proposal to sell an access easement or purchase the tract, AP & DP sued in 2024 for an easement by necessity across the appellees’ properties. AP & DP conceded that the properties lacked unity of ownership and had not been severed from a common tract, but argued that public policy favoring beneficial land use justified an easement. The Spencer Circuit Court converted the defendants’ dismissal motions into summary-judgment motions, entered judgment for the defendants, and denied AP & DP’s cross-motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed. Kentucky law requires a claimant seeking an easement by necessity to establish unity of ownership between the dominant and servient estates, severance of that unity by conveyance, and necessity of access at the time of severance. Although AP & DP’s tract was undisputedly landlocked, the company conceded that neither unity of ownership nor severance from the appellees’ properties existed.
The court declined to dispense with those requirements on public-policy grounds. While acknowledging Kentucky’s policy favoring beneficial use of land and AP & DP’s difficult position, the court held that it was bound by established precedent. AP & DP’s knowledge that the property was landlocked when purchased further supported the result, and the absence of unity of ownership entitled the appellees to judgment as a matter of law.
Key Takeaways
- A landlocked parcel does not, by itself, establish an easement by necessity under Kentucky law.
- The claimant must prove unity of ownership, later severance of title, and necessity of access when the property was divided.
- Public policy favoring productive land use did not permit the court to disregard the unity-of-ownership requirement.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Kentucky’s easement-by-necessity doctrine depends on the historical relationship between the affected parcels, not merely the current owner’s need for access. Purchasers of landlocked property cannot rely on courts to impose access across neighboring land when the parcels did not originate under common ownership.