VICKIE ROBNETT v. EDWARD H. TENISON, JR. (Tenn.Ct.App. September 24, 2008).
The issue is whether a court-ordered easement by necessity for ingress and egress to landlocked property may be terminated on the ground it is no longer necessary because the landlocked owner has an express easement through which that owner has reasonable, although not as desirable, ingress and egress. The trial court denied the petition to terminate the easement by necessity upon a finding it would place an undue burden on the landlocked property owner to have it terminated. We have determined the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, that of undue burden, to deny the petition to terminate the easement at issue. Easements by necessity are dependent on the necessity that created them; therefore, a way of necessity continues only as long as a necessity for its use continues. The fact that the way of necessity would be the most convenient does not prevent its extinguishment when it ceases to be absolutely necessary. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the trial court
Opinion may be found at the TBA website: http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2008/robnettv_092408.pdf
"[A]n easement by necessity may continue only as long, as a necessity for its use continues  The fact the way of necessity continues to be the most convenient is not sufficient to prevent its extinguishment if it ceases to be absolutely necessary.  The easement was created for the purpose of affording Ms. Robnett ingress and egress from a public road. Due to recent improvements to the easement that leads to Highway 412, the easement through Mr. Tenison’s property is no longer absolutely necessary. Because the purpose for which the easement through Mr. Tenison’s property was created no longer exists, there is an end to the easement by necessity through Mr. Tenison’s property." Id. (citations and quotations omitted).