Also known as: adversely enjoyed · hostile use · adverse use
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Possession or use of land under a claim of right against the property owner. The use must remain continuous and uninterrupted for the prescriptive period to create an easement.
Andre Antoine's logistics firm drove maintenance trucks across a neighbor's gravel path several times each week to reach a backbone connection. The pattern continued without any pause in the firm's asserted right for more than a decade. When the neighbor later blocked the path, the firm claimed a prescriptive easement based on the unbroken attitude of adverse use.
Adrian Aguilar ran fiber optic cable along a strip of adjacent land and used it openly for server maintenance. The servient owner never filed suit or took steps outside court to stop the activity during the full prescriptive period. Aguilar therefore asserted that the use remained uninterrupted and ripened into an easement.
Aaron Adams maintained a footpath across a working farm for seasonal training access over many years. The use stayed continuous and uninterrupted for the entire period required by local prescription rules. Adams claimed the resulting easement extinguished any inconsistent rights of the farm owner.
Ava Adebayo crossed a neighboring parcel only during spring and fall training seasons for more than the prescriptive period. The denial of the owner's rights occurred solely in those seasons. Any easement that arose was therefore limited in duration to the exact scope of that seasonal denial.
Alexis Archer continued to drive maintenance vehicles across a strip of land after the prescriptive period had run. The servient owner sued for trespass based on the ongoing crossings. Archer invoked the immunity that arose from the completed adverse use during the prescription period.
Alice Atkins and her successor continued the same pattern of adverse path use after a sale that transferred all interests in the route. The combined periods satisfied the full prescription requirement. The successor therefore held the easement that had ripened through the tacked adverse enjoyment.
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 caseThe use must be adverse, open and notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted for the full prescriptive period. Continuity requires no break in the essential attitude of mind required for adverse use. Uninterrupted use means the servient owner neither sues successfully nor stops the use without litigation.
Supporting sources
The durational extent is limited by the exact denial of the servient owner's rights during the adverse use. Seasonal or periodic use therefore produces an easement only for those periods and intensities.
Supporting sources
Once the prescriptive period ends, the user gains immunity from liability for the acts of use that occurred during that period.
Supporting sources
Yes, when privity exists between them, such as through a deed assigning interests in the route. The combined periods can satisfy the full prescription requirement.
Supporting sources
…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…