Defining “Necessity” for Private Roads and Implied Easements: Tilden v. Jackson

Introduction

In Samuel J. Tilden v. Linda J. Jackson (2025 WY 57), the Supreme Court of Wyoming clarified critical thresholds for establishing private roads under Wyoming Statute § 24-9-101 and for recognizing implied easements by prior use. Samuel Tilden (Appellant/Plaintiff) sought access across his neighbor Linda Jackson’s (Appellee/Defendant) land to reach a lower portion of his property. He pursued two remedies: (1) creation of a private road as of necessity and (2) a declaration of an implied easement arising from long-standing use prior to severance of the properties. The district court denied both claims—summary judgment on the private road cause and a bench-trial ruling on the implied easement—and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court affirmed summary judgment against Tilden on his private-road claim, holding that his land was not “landlocked” and that his alternative access via a county road defeated any necessity.
The Court upheld the district court’s bench-trial findings that Tilden failed to establish two elements of an implied easement by prior use: (a) an “apparent, obvious, and continuous” use at the time of severance, and (b) a necessity arising at severance—mere convenience did not suffice.
The decision reaffirms that natural obstacles on the dominant land do not convert convenience into constitutional necessity and that implied easements are narrowly construed.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

McIlquham v. Anthony Wilkinson Live Stock Co. (104 P. 20, Wyo. 1909): Early articulation that necessity under private-road statutes requires landlock, not mere inconvenience.
McGuire v. McGuire (608 P.2d 1278, 1286 (Wyo. 1980)): Clarified “necessary” refers to lack of convenient public-road access.
Thornock v. Esterholdt (2016 WY 63): Held the private-road statute protects against landlock but does not authorize roads to improve marketability or convenience.
Reidy v. Stratton Sheep Co. (2006 WY 69): Reinforced that direct public-road access precludes necessity for a private road.
Hansuld I & II (2003 WY 165; 2010 WY 160): Set forth three elements for implied easements by prior use—common ownership and severance; apparent, obvious, continuous use; and necessity at severance.
Wheeldon v. ELK Feed Grounds House, LLC (2021 WY 71): Affirmed strict interpretation of the second and third elements for implied easements and timing at severance.
Additional cases on implied easements: Miner v. Jesse & Grace, LLC, O’Hare v. Hulme, Upper Wagon Box, LLC v. Box Hanging Three Ranch Ltd. P’ship, Corbett v. Whitney.

2. Legal Reasoning

Private Road (Wyoming Statute § 24-9-101)
The Court first analyzed whether Tilden’s land qualified as “landlocked” when a county road traversed his parcel. Under the Wyoming Constitution and statute, a private way of necessity arises only when a property lacks any legally enforceable outlet to a public road. Tilden’s concession of a county road across his tract—and his failure to demonstrate that this route was so impractical as to constitute substantial inconvenience—defeated his claim. The Court held that a steep incline on the dominant estate does not transform a lawful public-road connection into a constitutional necessity.

Implied Easement by Prior Use
To find an implied easement, the Court requires proof of: (1) unity of title followed by severance; (2) prior use that was apparent, obvious, continuous at severance; and (3) necessity and benefit as of severance. Tilden satisfied the first element but fell short on the second and third. Aerial photographs and witness testimony established no visible or continuous path across Jackson’s land at the time of severance—only a short well-service track, not a route to the lower meadow. Further, Tilden’s bartered intent to build a cabin and maintain horses arose years after severance, reflecting mere convenience rather than a strict necessity. Alternative modes of enjoying the parcel (e.g., existing game trails) negated any genuine necessity.

3. Impact

This decision carries significant implications for land-use disputes in Wyoming and similar jurisdictions:

It cements that statutory private-road relief is confined to true landlock situations, not topographic inconveniences.
It reinforces the narrow, fact-intensive inquiry for implied easements—protecting servient owners against broad claims of convenience.
Future litigants must carefully document visible, continuous use at the moment of severance and demonstrate an absence of alternative access.
Surveyors, title insurers, and attorneys advising property buyers should emphasize recorded public-road access and the limited reach of implied easements.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Private Road of Necessity: A court-ordered right to build a road on another’s land, but only if your land truly has no legal outlet to a public highway.
Landlocked: No legal or recorded right to reach a public road without crossing another’s property.
Implied Easement by Prior Use: A non-written right to continue an existing use across former common land, inferred when use was obvious at severance and strictly necessary.
Apparent, Obvious, Continuous: Visible on inspection (not hidden), unmistakably in use, and regularly employed before the properties split.
Necessity vs. Convenience: “Necessity” means no other reasonable way to use your land; mere “convenience” (saving time or effort) is insufficient.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Wyoming in Tilden v. Jackson reaffirmed the stringent requirements for both private-road claims and implied easements. Access via a public road—even if challenging—prevents a private-road remedy. Implied easements demand concrete, visible use and true necessity at the moment of severance. Together, these rulings protect servient landowners from involuntary takings for mere convenience and underscore the narrow circumstances in which courts may impose rights over another’s land. For stakeholders in property and boundary disputes, Tilden v. Jackson stands as a clear guidepost on the limits of easements and roadway rights of necessity.