Whitt v. Ferris

The Kumpfs subdivided a tract of land into lots and built an unpaved road with grass strips before vacating most of the subdivision, keeping only lots 1-6. The Ferrises (plaintiffs) held lot 5 (which abutted a public road) and landlocked lot 8, accessible through lot 5; the Joneses (plaintiffs) held lot 6, which also abutted a public road; and the Stettlers (plaintiffs) held lot 7, landlocked except via the dirt road. The Whitts (defendants) bought the surrounding land including the road and fenced it off, and the plaintiffs sued claiming an easement by implication; the trial court granted all three a 60-foot easement covering the road and grass strips, and the Whitts appealed.

Whether a court will grant an easement by implication to a landowner who has another reasonable means of accessing the property, and how broad any granted easement must be.