Reserved Easements and the “Notice-to-Exercise” Rule
Supreme Court of Wyoming clarifies that a plat’s reservation clause does not ripen into an easement unless the grantor affirmatively notifies the servient-estate owner

I. Introduction

In Bruce H. Clark and Elaine Sullivan, Trustees of the Lenore H. Clark Living Trust dated September 24, 1992 v. Bryce E. Fuller and Alisha M. Fuller, 2025 WY 92, the Wyoming Supreme Court resolved a dispute over access across Lot 4 of Sunrise Subdivision in Lincoln County. The trustees of the Clark family trust (the “Clarks”) asserted they possessed either:

• an express easement created by the subdivision plat and Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs), or
• an implied easement by prior use and necessity.

After the district court denied both theories, the Clarks appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, sharpening two doctrinal points:

1. A reservation on a recorded plat that is expressly conditioned on future notice does not create an easement until that notice is actually given (“notice-to-exercise” rule).
2. An implied easement fails where alternative, even if less convenient, routes exist and the claimant cannot show necessity at the moment of severance.

II. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s findings that:

• No express easement. The subdivision plat reserved to the original owner (Mrs. Clark) a future right to extend Buttercup Lane to the southern boundary, but that right was conditional upon giving notice to “owners or potential buyers of Lot 4.” The record lacked evidence of such notice; the CC&Rs alone did not satisfy the condition.
• No implied easement. The Clarks failed to prove necessity. At severance, the southern parcel could be (and still can be) accessed from a county road on its western boundary and through other Clark-owned land to the north. Convenience is insufficient.
• Affirmance. Consequently, the Fullers’ refusal to allow passage over Lot 4 was lawful.

III. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. Testolin v. Thirty-One Bar Ranch Co., 2024 WY 6 — reaffirmed that easements are construed using contract principles.
2. Upper Wagon Box, LLC v. Box Hanging Three Ranch Ltd. P’ship, 2022 WY 155 — provided the rule that context may aid interpretation only when language is ambiguous.
3. Gayhart v. Corsi, 2020 WY 58 — restated the ambiguity/clarity dichotomy for easement interpretation.
4. Tilden v. Jackson, 2025 WY 57, and Wheeldon v. ELK Feed Grounds House, 2021 WY 71 — articulated the three-element test for implied easements and the heightened “necessity” requirement.
5. Miner v. Jesse & Grace, LLC, 2014 WY 17, and O’Hare v. Hulme, 2020 WY 31 — explained that mere inconvenience or extra cost does not establish necessity.
6. Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC v. Jackson Hole Hereford Ranch, LLC, 2025 WY 63, and Boot Ranch, LLC v. Wagonhound Land & Livestock Co., 2024 WY 136 — supplied the appellate standards for reviewing factual findings after a bench trial (clear-error review).

B. Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Express Easement Analysis
   
   • The subdivision plat expressly reserved (did not grant) a right in Mrs. Clark “to extend Buttercup Lane … for access to adjoining lands,” conditioned on giving future notice to Lot 4 owners.
   • Since an easement reservation is interpreted like any other contract, the court first examined the plain language. It found the language unambiguous: notice is a condition precedent.
   • The CC&Rs, recorded two years later, referenced Buttercup Lane but were ambiguous as to scope. Even if they were notice of an easement within the subdivision, they did not constitute notice of an extension beyond the cul-de-sac to the southern boundary.
   • Because the Clarks could not prove that Mrs. Clark (or the Trust) ever provided the mandated notice—either in writing, by amended plat, or by recorded instrument—the reserved right never matured into an easement.
2. Implied Easement Analysis
   
   • The court applied the three-part test from Tilden:
     1. common ownership followed by severance — conceded;
     2. prior, apparent, and continuous use — evidence was minimal (occasional two-track use visible only by family);
     3. necessity to beneficial enjoyment — failed.
   • The southern parcel touched a county road, giving direct public access. Additional northern access across other Clark land was feasible. By definition, the easement was not “strictly necessary.”
   • The court clarified that necessity is measured at severance; later inconvenience or a desire for a shorter route cannot retroactively create necessity.

C. Impact of the Decision

• Developers and Surveyors: When reserving future rights, they must draft unequivocal triggers and record affirmative instruments when exercising those rights. Otherwise, the reservation remains dormant.
• Real-estate purchasers: Title commitments listing “matters on plat” or CC&Rs do not automatically impose unexercised reserved easements; buyers need not accommodate them absent documentary evidence of exercise.
• Litigation standards: The case underscores the demanding nature of the “necessity” prong for implied easements in Wyoming. Alternative routes—no matter how circuitous or expensive—undermine necessity unless they render the parcel practically unusable.
• Recording practice: The Court’s insistence on recorded notice incentivizes grantors to amend plats or file easement deeds rather than relying on oral statements or ambiguous CC&Rs.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Express Easement: A written, recorded right to use another’s land for a specific purpose. Think of it like a permanent, property-level “hall pass.”
• Reservation vs. Grant: A grant gives an easement immediately; a reservation keeps a future option in the grantor, often subject to conditions.
• Condition Precedent: An event that must occur before a contractual right vests. Here, notice to Lot 4 owners was the condition precedent.
• Constructive vs. Actual Notice: Constructive notice arises from recorded documents that the law deems everyone to know; actual notice is direct communication. The Court held that the plat required actual (specific) notice, not merely recording.
• Implied Easement by Prior Use: An easement the law infers when land held in common ownership is divided and one part has openly, continuously benefited from use of the other part in a way “necessary” to its enjoyment.
• Necessity: More than convenience: there must be no reasonable alternative access at the time ownership is split.
• Clear-Error Review: On appeal, the court sets aside a trial judge’s fact-finding only if left with a “definite and firm conviction” that an error occurred.

V. Conclusion

The Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision in Clark v. Fuller crystallizes a pivotal principle: a reserved easement right, expressly conditioned on later notice, does not exist until that notice is actually and provably given. Recording a plat or CC&Rs may establish constructive notice of the possibility of future extension, but it is no substitute for the grantor’s affirmative act required by the reservation clause. Moreover, the opinion aligns with Wyoming’s modern trend of limiting implied easements to truly essential situations, resisting expansion based on mere efficiency or preference. Going forward, land owners, drafters, and litigants must pay close attention to (1) the language they choose when reserving future rights and (2) the rigorous evidence needed to prove necessity when implied rights are claimed. The case thus stands as authoritative guidance on both recording practice and easement litigation in Wyoming.