¶13. "An easement by necessity arises by implied grant when a part of a commonly[ ]owned tract of land is severed in such a way that either portion of the property has been rendered inaccessible except by passing over the other portion or by trespassing on the lands of another." Harkness v. Butterworth Hunting Club Inc., 58 So.3d 703, 706 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Broadhead v. Terpening, 611 So.2d 949, 953 (Miss. 1992)).

STANDARD OF REVIEW¶ 12. “Unless they were either manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous, we will not disturb the chancellor's findings on appeal.” Harkness v. Butterworth Hunting Club Inc., 58 So.3d 703, 705 (¶ 6) (Miss.Ct.App.2011). “If there is substantial evidence that supports the chancellor's decision, we will affirm.”

¶12. "Unless they were either manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous, we will not disturb the chancellor's findings on appeal." Harkness v. Butterworth Hunting Club Inc., 58 So. 3d 703, 705 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011). "If there is substantial evidence that supports the chancellor's decision, we will affirm."

"Simply stating that it would appear to be ‘very expensive’ to access property by some other means is not sufficient." Swenson v. Brouillette, 163 So. 3d 957, 965 (¶29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Harkness v. Butterworth Hunting Club Inc., 58 So. 3d 703, 708 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011)). Moreover, "[w]here one seeks to obtain a "way of access’ easement by necessity but submits no evidence as to the allegedly higher costs of an alternative route, a trial court will not err in declining to award an easement."

¶ 10. In Harkness v. Butterworth Hunting Club Inc. , 58 So.3d 703, 707 (¶ 12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011), this Court recognized that the supreme court in Fourth Davis Island "held that there is one standard of proof that applies to an attempt to obtain an implied easement for utility services, and a different standard of proof that applies to an attempt to obtain an implied easement for the purpose of ingress and egress over another landowner's property." This Court further recognized that "one must prove strict necessity to obtain an implied easement involving a ‘way of necessity.

We have identified no case that specifically holds that the common-law requirement that "the easement is necessary," Borne , 118 So.3d at 584 (¶ 34) (enumerating the elements of an implied easement by necessity), is the same as the statutory standard, which has been interpreted as "reasonably necessary and practical" but "not absolutely necessary," Quinn v. Holly , 244 Miss. 808, 813, 146 So.2d 357, 359 (1962). This Court's decision in Harkness v. Butterworth Hunting Club Inc. , 58 So.3d 703, 708–09 (¶¶ 14–15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2011), suggests that there may be differences. ¶ 32.

Where one seeks to obtain a ‘way of access' easement by necessity [,] but submits no evidence as to the allegedly higher costs of an alternative route, a trial court will not err in declining to award an easement.” Harkness v. Butterworth Hunting Club, Inc., 58 So.3d 703, 708 (¶ 14) (Miss.Ct.App.2011). King does not offer sufficient evidence of any additional costs or impractical alternative routes.

No. 2009 CA 1842. May 7, 2010.