With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". proof that the party seeking the easement has ‘a mere license to use a way across the land’ of another.” Crone v. Brumley, 219 S.W.3d 65, 68 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006, pet. denied). However, the party seeking to establish an easement by necessity must prove he has no other legal access to his property. Id. The party seeking to establish an easement by necessity also must prove that the necessity existed at the time the estates were severed. See Koonce, 663 S.W.2d at 452 (an element necessary to establish an implied easement by necessity is that the necessity must exist at the time of severance of the two estates); Perkins v, Krauter Family P’ship, Ltd., No. 04-03-00166-CV, 2004 WL 2097516, at *1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio Sept.22, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>); Daniel v. Fox, 917 S.W.2d 106, 110

A: holding same as to an easement by implication
B: holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement
C: holding that an easement appurtenant to a freehold estate of a dowager expired with that estate
D: holding same as to an implied easement appurtenant
D.