This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P filed a complaint asserting that he had acquired an 'easement of necessity by implication' to a driveway located on D’s adjacent property. D counterclaimed to quiet title. The parcels are adjoining tracts. Previously, William and Ida Schultz owned the subject properties, 5 parcels in all. Between 1931 and 1936, three parcels were conveyed to separate purchasers: parcel A in 1931, parcel B in 1932, and parcel C in July 1936. On December 9, 1936, William Schultz conveyed parcel D, retaining parcel E for himself until it was sold in 1941. Parcel E was landlocked at the time Schultz conveyed parcel D. The trial court found that at the time of the severance of the two properties in 1936, there was no evidence or claim that the driveway was the sole method of ingress and egress. The court believed P bought the parcel as is from the bankruptcy court and must take it as he found it, with or without access, and held that there had been no proof that this was a property subject to an easement by necessity. On appeal, P contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.