Under the implied creation of Easements, which factor is evidence?

• A. Expressly reserved for the benefit of the land
• B. Rights enjoyed by the seller is transferred on sale
• C. Necessity
• D. An intention to abandon the land

Answer: (C)

When an easement is created by implication, the strongest clue is necessity. If a parcel cannot be used as intended without crossing the neighboring land—for example, a landlocked property that has no access to a road—the law will often infer an easement to enable that use. This necessity makes the easement practically indispensable for enjoying the benefited land, so courts treat it as implied rather than agreed in writing.

That’s why necessity is the best evidence here: it rests on the practical need to make the land workable, rather than on express agreement or ongoing actions. The other factors point to alternatives to implied creation rather than the essential spark of implication itself. An express reservation shows you’ve pre-stated the easement in writing, not implied creation. Rights that the seller enjoyed and transfer on sale may reflect pre-existing rights or terms of the sale, not the inference of an easement from necessity. An intention to abandon the land would undermine or terminate use, not create an easement.