So although the appellants did not raise prescriptive-easement claims in their complaint, that theory was tried by consent. See M.R.C.P. 15(b) ; Swenson v. Brouillette , 163 So.3d 957, 963–64 (¶¶ 20–22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014).¶ 51. "The burden of proof needed to establish a prescriptive easement is the same as for a claim of adverse possession of land.

"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."

"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." Swenson v. Brouillette, 163 So.3d 957, 965 (¶29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Harkness, 58 So.3d at 708 (¶14)). ¶15. The facts of Harkness are similar to the instant case.

"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." Swenson v. Brouillette , 163 So.3d 957, 965 (¶ 29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Harkness , 58 So.3d at 708 (¶ 14) ). "Simply stating that it would appear to be ‘very expensive’ to access property by some other means is not sufficient." Id. Hamp's claim that the alternative route would be cost prohibitive was not supported and thus not sufficient.