Also known as: adverse uses
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A use of land belonging to another without license or permission. The use must be hostile to the owner's rights and satisfy requirements of continuity and lack of interruption to support acquisition of a prescriptive easement.
Austin Abbott drove delivery trucks across Anchor Bank's rear lot every weekday for fifteen years to reach his warehouse. He never sought permission and maintained the same schedule without any pause in his belief that the route was his right. The bank never interrupted the traffic. The continuous attitude of mind satisfies the requirement for adverse use.
Anita Ali crossed Alpine Mining's access road daily to reach her cabin. The mining company never filed suit to stop her and never physically blocked the road. Her use therefore remained uninterrupted for the full prescriptive period.
Andrew Avery maintained a footpath across Ashford Manufacturing's vacant parcel to reach a public trail. The path remained open and in regular use for the entire statutory period without any break or legal challenge. The continuous and uninterrupted character of the adverse use supports creation of a prescriptive easement.
Adrian Aguilar used a gravel driveway across Azure Solutions' property only during business hours to reach his loading dock. The denial of the owner's rights occurred solely during those hours. Any prescriptive easement is therefore limited to the same daytime schedule.
Alan Ackerman parked delivery vehicles on a strip of Anchor Bank's land for the full prescriptive period. Once the period ran, he gained immunity from trespass liability for those acts of use.
Anthony Arnold began crossing Howard's pasture to reach a public road. After Arnold sold his farm to Kunto with an assignment of all access rights, Kunto continued the identical crossings. The successive periods of adverse use may be combined because privity exists between the users.
Land surveying errors led to a mismatch between deed descriptions and actual occupations on the shore of Hood Canal in Mason County. As long ago as 1932, McCall resided in the house now occupied by the Kuntos under a deed describing a 50-foot-wide parcel that was adjacent to the lot where the house stood. Several property owners to the west of defendants were similarly situated. Since 1946, several conveyances occurred using the same legal description accompanied by transfer of possession to succeeding occupants. The Kuntos' immediate predecessors, the Millers, had a survey performed to build a dock which indicated conformity between deed and occupation, leading to placement of boundary stakes and construction of improvements. The Kuntos took possession of the disputed property under a deed from the Millers in 1959. In 1960, the Howards, who held land east of the Kuntos, undertook a survey to convey an undivided one-half interest to the Yearlys. The survey revealed that the Howards were record owners of land occupied by the Moyers and the Moyers held record title to land occupied by the Kuntos. In April 1960, Howard obtained a conveyance from Moyer of the land upon which the Kunto house stood in exchange for conveying the land upon which the Moyer house stood. Until that conveyance, neither Moyer nor predecessors asserted any right to the property possessed by Kunto and predecessors. Plaintiffs instituted this action to quiet title on August 19, 1960, when defendants had been in occupancy of the disputed property less than a year. The trial court denied the Kuntos' claim of adverse possession, finding a lack of continuity of possession or estate to permit tacking and that defendants' possession was not continuous because it involved only summer occupancy. Defendants appealed from the decree quieting title in the plaintiffs.
View caseA use is adverse when it occurs without license or permission and is hostile to the owner's rights. Permission granted by the owner prevents the use from qualifying as adverse.
Continuity requires that the user maintain an unbroken attitude of mind asserting the right. Lack of interruption requires that the owner take no legal action or physical steps to stop the use.
Yes. When privity exists between successive users, such as through a deed assigning the interest, the periods may be tacked to satisfy the prescriptive period.
The easement is limited to the precise extent of the denial of the owner's rights during the adverse period, including the schedule and character of the use.
Yes. Once the period runs, the user gains immunity from liability for the acts of use that occurred during the prescriptive period.
…appellants contend that their constitutionally established rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude appellees from adverse use of appellants' private property cannot be denied by invocation of a state constitutional provision or by judicial reconstruction of a State's laws of private property. We postponed…