Deane v. Kahn

Summary

The court held that the trial court properly considered evidence from before and after the 1935 conveyance in identifying the location and use of the deeded easement over the Gorman property, and that sufficient evidence supported treating that easement as appurtenant. It held that the Deane property was not entitled to an easement by necessity over the Kahn property because it was not truly landlocked and the record did not establish the narrow circumstances permitting reasonable necessity. The court nevertheless remanded the easement-by-implication claim for further proceedings because that claim had not been adjudicated. The justices concurred, and no separate opinion was filed.