Brief Fact Summary. Plaintiff claims a prescriptive easement across Defendants’ property due to the open and notorious use of Defendants’ property as a roadway for more than ten years.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. In order to establish a prescriptive easement a claimant must show, by clear and convincing evidence, an open and notorious use of Defendants’ land adverse to the rights of Defendants for a continuous and uninterrupted period of ten years.
In order to establish a prescriptive easement, plaintiffs must show an open and notorious use of land adverse to the rights of defendants for a continuous and uninterrupted period of ten years.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Did the Plaintiff establish a prescriptive easement?
Held. Yes. Judgment affirmed.
To establish a prescriptive easement a claimant must show by clear and convincing evidence an open and notorious use of defendant’s land adverse to the rights of defendants for a continuous and uninterrupted period of ten years.
The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff’s use of the path was not sufficiently continuous to establish a prescriptive easement. The court held that continuous does not mean constant; it refers only to the character of the user’s state of mind and requires only that the alleged easement be used in a manner consistent with the needs of the user. The evidence showed that the Plaintiff and her deceased husband used the path in a continuous manner for ten years and more.
The court held that a use, which is shown to be open and continuous for ten years, is presumed to be adverse. Showing that the Plaintiffs merely used an existing road in a way that did not interfere with Defendants’ use may rebut the presumption. In this case the court found no evidence of an existing road, no evidence of the Defendants’ use of the land in question, and that the Defendants had failed to rebut the presumption of adverse use.
The Defendants also argued that the judgment of the trial court was worded so broadly that the Plaintiff could pave the roadway, which would interfere with Defendants’ property rights. The court held that an easement owner is limited to those uses of the easement that are reasonably necessary for the easement’s purpose. Thus, the fact that there was no indication of the Plaintiff’s desire to pave the path meant that the question was of no importance.
Discussion. The doctrine of prescriptive easement is similar in character to that of adverse possession, which will be covered in another section of the text. The chief difference is that a prescriptive easement is adverse use by one of the lands of another, which does not result in a change in ownership of the land itself, whereas adverse possession does cause such a shift in ownership.