O'Dell v. Stegall

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia · 2010 · Property

PropertyPrescriptive easementsprescriptive easementadverse useclear and convincing evidencecontinuous and uninterruptedopen and notoriousactual knowledge

Facts

O'Dell bought a home in Jefferson County that abutted a public road and already had its own driveway to that road. He claimed a right to use a separate 25-foot gravel lane bordering his property to access a horseshoe driveway on the north side of his home, even though he did not know who owned the land beneath the lane. At trial, O'Dell relied mainly on testimony that churchgoers had used the lane for decades before 1999 to reach a rear parking lot when the building had been a church, but his own expert testified that he was not sure this was a prescriptive easement. The Stegalls, whose landlocked parcel used the lane as access to the public road, objected to O'Dell's use and were held liable by the jury for interference and other torts.

Issue

Did O'Dell prove by clear and convincing evidence that he or his predecessors acquired a prescriptive easement over the gravel lane? If not, could the jury's damages awards against the Stegalls for interference and related tort theories stand?

Rule

A person claiming a prescriptive easement must establish each element as a necessary and independent fact by clear and convincing evidence: (1) adverse use of another's land; (2) continuous and uninterrupted adverse use for at least ten years; (3) use actually known to the owner or so open, notorious, and visible that a reasonable owner would have noticed it; and (4) the reasonably identified starting point, ending point, line, width, and manner or purpose of the adverse use. An adverse use is a wrongful use made without the express or implied permission of the owner, and the burden of proving adversity rests entirely on the claimant; prior cases presuming adversity from ten years of use are overruled to that extent.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Morgantown, Nina Patel has walked and driven across a narrow paved strip behind Owen Brooks's duplex to reach her detached garage for 14 years. Owen knew about the use and never stopped it, but Nina cannot point to any statement or conduct showing she used the strip without permission rather than as a tolerated convenience between neighbors.

If Nina sues to establish a prescriptive easement, which is the strongest argument against her claim?

Explanation. The majority held that prescriptive easements are disfavored and every element must be proved by the claimant by clear and convincing evidence. Most importantly, adversity is not presumed from long use; prior cases suggesting such a presumption were overruled. If the evidence is equally consistent with neighborly accommodation or permission, the claimant fails.