N.C.P.I.—Civil 840.25

The (state number) issue reads:

"Is the plaintiff entitled to an easement across the land of the

defendant because of necessity?"

(An easement is a right to make [a specific use] [specific uses] of

land owned by another.1 One who has an easement does not own the

land but has only the right to use the land for the purpose(s) of the

easement.2 The owner of land burdened by an easement continues to

have all the rights of a landowner which are not inconsistent with the

reasonable use and enjoyment of the easement.)3

On this issue the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means

that the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, two

things:4

First, that the parcel of land now owned by the plaintiff and the

parcel of land now owned by the defendant were owned at one time by

the same [person] [entity], that is, that both parcels had an earlier

common owner.5 (It is not necessary that the parcels of land now owned

by the plaintiff and the defendant were part of a single larger tract. It is

sufficient that both parcels were previously owned by the same person.)6

(It is not necessary for either the plaintiff or the defendant to have been

the earlier common owner.)7

And Second, when the common owner sold or transferred the parcel

of land now owned by the plaintiff, it then became necessary for the

[plaintiff] [plaintiff's predecessor-in-title] to be able to cross other land

owned by the common owner in order to have beneficial use of the land

purchased or acquired. Absolute necessity is not required.8 It is

sufficient that the physical conditions and uses at the time of the sale or

transfer by the common owner were such that a reasonable person under

the same or similar circumstances would believe that the common owner

intended for the [plaintiff] [plaintiff's predecessor-in-title] to have a right

of access over the other land.9

Finally, as to the (state number) issue on which the plaintiff has

the burden of proof, if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that

the parcel of land now owned by the plaintiff and the parcel of land now

owned by the defendant had an earlier common owner, and that at the

time the common owner sold or transferred the parcel of land now owned

by the plaintiff, it became necessary for the [plaintiff] [plaintiff's

predecessor-in-title] to be able to cross other land owned by the common

owner in order to have beneficial use of the land the [plaintiff] [plaintiff's

predecessor-in-title] purchased or acquired, then it would be your duty to

answer this issue "Yes" in favor of the plaintiff.

If, on the other hand, you fail to so find, then it would be your duty

to answer this issue "No" in favor of the defendant.10