With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of inaccessibility then existing. Innkeepers of New Castle, 392 N.E.2d at 464. Cockrell admits that no easement of necessity was implied when Deckard divided his land into three parcels because tract ten had access to a public road at that time. If a way of necessity was not created at the time that the parcel was originally divided, then a subsequent necessity cannot now cause an easement of necessity to come into existence. Id. The trial court's findings support its conclusion that Cockrell failed to demonstrate the unity of title that would be required for an easement to be implied across Hawking's land. See Continental Enterprises, Inc. v. Cain, 156 Ind.App. 305, 306, 296 N.E.2d 170, 171 (1978). Consequently, that conclusion is not clearly erroneous. Cf. Hvidston, 591 N.E.2d at 572 (<HOLDING>). Because Cockrell did not demonstrate the

A: recognizing that appellate court may reverse trial courts judgment when it is based on an erroneous conclusion of law
B: holding that district courts decision regarding defendants minor role status was not clearly erroneous
C: recognizing that factual findings were clearly erroneous where the record before the court was simply devoid of any basis for the district courts conclusion
D: holding that the trial courts conclusion regarding an easement of necessity was clearly erroneous
D.