The issue is whether a court-ordered easement by necessity for ingress and egress to landlockedproperty may be terminated on the ground it is no longer necessary because the landlocked ownerhas an express easement through which that owner has reasonable, although not as desirable, ingressand egress. The trial court denied the petition to terminate the easement by necessity upon a findingit would place an undue burden on the landlocked property owner to have it terminated. We havedetermined the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, that of undue burden, to deny thepetition to terminate the easement at issue. Easements by necessity are dependent on the necessitythat created them; therefore, a way of necessity continues only as long as a necessity for its usecontinues. The fact that the way of necessity would be the most convenient does not prevent itsextinguishment when it ceases to be absolutely necessary. Accordingly, we reverse the decision ofthe trial court.
"The existence of an easement by necessity is dependent on the necessity that created it. 28AC.J.S. Easements § 161 (2008). Therefore, “a way of necessity continues as long, but only as long,as a necessity for its use continues.” Id. (emphasis added). “If an easement for a particular purposeis granted, when that purpose no longer exists, there is an end of the easement.” McGiffin v. City ofGatlinburg, 260 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Tenn. 1953) (quoting Washburn, Treatise on Easement, 654 (3ded.)). “The fact that a former way of necessity continues to be the most convenient way will not prevent its extinguishment when it ceases to be absolutely necessary.” Id.