Easement by Implication as a Cause of Action in Connecticut

An easement by implication is a legal right to use another person’s property that arises not through a formal written agreement but by circumstances indicating the original intent of the parties. In Connecticut, courts will impose an easement by implication when specific conditions are met. This often occurs in cases where a piece of property is divided, and the continued use of a portion of the property is necessary for reasonable use and enjoyment.

The Connecticut Appellate Court in Hoffman Fuel Company of Danbury v. Elliott outlines the two principal factors that must be examined to determine whether an easement by implication exists:

1. The Intention of the Parties
   The court will look at the original intent of the parties at the time the property was divided. Evidence of intent can come from the nature of the property, prior use, and any existing conditions that suggest the parties expected the easement to continue after the division of the property. The focus is on whether a reasonable person would have assumed the easement was part of the original transaction.
2. Reasonable Necessity for Use and Enjoyment of the Dominant Estate
   The easement must be reasonably necessary for the normal use and enjoyment of the property benefiting from the easement (the dominant estate). Reasonable necessity does not require absolute necessity but means that the easement significantly improves the utility or enjoyment of the property. Examples include access roads, utility lines, or drainage systems that were in use before the property was divided.

In evaluating these factors, courts may also consider the continuity and apparent nature of prior use and whether denying the easement would cause substantial hardship to the dominant estate. Easements by implication are intended to preserve the reasonable expectations of property owners based on the historical use of the land.

Find the Law

The elements of an easement by implication are summarized in Hoffman Fuel Company of Danbury v. Elliott, 68 Conn. App. 272, 282 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002), citing O’Brien v. Coburn, 39 Conn. App. 143, 148 (1995):

“There are two principal factors to be examined in determining whether an easement by implication has arisen: (1) the intention of the parties; and (2) whether the easement is reasonably necessary for the use and normal enjoyment of the dominant estate.”

This doctrine ensures that property owners retain access and rights that were clearly intended and necessary for the practical use of their property.