Title: Hafner v. Hansen

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

PRESENT:  Hassell, C.J., Keenan,1 Koontz, Lemons, Goodwyn, and 
Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. 
 
JUDITH HAFNER 
 
v.   Record No. 090972 
 
  
    OPINION BY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN 
       April 15, 2010 
WALTER D. HANSEN 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY 
Joanne F. Alper, Judge 
In this appeal, we consider whether there is sufficient 
evidence to support the circuit court’s holding that a 
litigant established a prescriptive easement permitting the 
use of an underground sewer pipe. 
We will state the facts in the light most favorable to 
Walter D. Hansen, the prevailing party below.  Johnson v. 
DeBusk Farm, Inc., 272 Va. 726, 730, 636 S.E.2d 388, 390 
(2006); Jenkins v. Bay House Assocs., L.P., 266 Va. 39, 41, 
581 S.E.2d 510, 511 (2003).  In 2007, Judith A. Hafner 
employed a contractor to complete a remodeling project on her 
Arlington home located on Fillmore Street (the Fillmore Street 
property).  The contractor discovered that a sewage pipe (the 
left side sewer line) lay 11 feet underground on the left side 
of Hafner’s house.  The left side sewer line, which was not 
visible above ground and was connected to the sewer main under 
                     
1 Justice Keenan participated in the hearing and decision 
of this case prior to her retirement from the Court on March 
12, 2010. 
Fillmore Street, provided sewer service to an apartment 
building located directly behind the Fillmore Street property. 
During construction in June 2007, the contractor damaged 
the left side sewer line, and Hafner directed the contractor 
to repair it.  The contractor repaired the left side sewer 
line and moved it several feet on the Fillmore Street property 
so that this sewer line would not interfere with the 
construction process. 
About two months later, Hafner’s attorney sent a letter 
to Hansen, the owner of the apartment building, to inform him 
of the damage to and relocation of the sewer line.  In the 
letter, Hafner’s attorney demanded that Hansen purchase an 
easement for the left side sewer line or construct a new sewer 
line on his own property. 
After the parties failed to reach an agreement, Hafner 
filed a complaint in the circuit court asserting that the left 
side sewer line constituted a trespass on her property.  
Hafner sought a permanent injunction to prohibit Hansen from 
maintaining the left side sewer line on the Fillmore Street 
property and sought $15,000 in damages.  In response, Hansen 
denied the allegations of trespass, and asserted that he had 
acquired a prescriptive easement for use of the left side 
sewer line. 
 
2 
 
The case proceeded to a bench trial.  The evidence showed 
that in 2006, Hafner purchased the Fillmore Street property, 
which contained a single-family home that was built around 
1927.  The apartment building was constructed some time 
between 1930 and 1940, and has been used continuously as 
rental property.  The Fillmore Street property and the 
property on which the apartment building was constructed (the 
apartment building property) were both created by a 1921 
subdivision deed, and the boundaries for those properties have 
not changed since that time. 
Plumbing records from the Arlington County Department of 
Sewers indicated that in July 1940, the County installed a 
sewer tap to connect the left side sewer line to a new, larger 
sewer main that had been constructed under Fillmore Street.  
These plumbing records further showed that at the time the 
sewer tap was installed, the left side sewer line provided 
sewer service to both the Fillmore Street property and the 
apartment building.  However, the plumbing records did not 
indicate when the left side sewer line was constructed. 
In 1940, Mr. and Mrs. D. E. Horrigan owned the Fillmore 
Street property.  In 1944, the Horrigans conveyed the Fillmore 
Street property to Raymond and Dorothy Walters. 
Another plumbing record received in evidence showed that, 
in 1946, the Walters paid for a sewer tap to provide service 
 
3 
 
to a sewer line on the right side of the house (the right side 
sewer line).  This plumbing record, however, did not reference 
the left side sewer line at issue in this case. 
The right side sewer line appeared on a 1963 Arlington 
County Street Plan, which indicated that this line provided 
sewer service to the Fillmore Street property.  In 1963, 
Dorothy Walters conveyed the Fillmore Street property to 
Better Homes Realty, Inc.  Three other parties owned the 
Fillmore Street property prior to the conveyance to Hafner in 
2006. 
The chain of title for the apartment building property 
showed that Joseph C. Boss and Lillie K. Boss owned the 
property in 1940.  In 1944, Hansen’s step-father, William J. 
Holtman, Jr., purchased the apartment building property and 
also purchased a title insurance policy, which revealed that 
the left side sewer line provided sewer service to the 
apartment building property but that no easement had been 
recorded for that line.  In 2003, Hansen acquired title to the 
apartment building property and retained possession of the 
title insurance policy. 
After considering all the evidence, the circuit court 
denied Hafner’s request for injunctive relief and held that 
Hansen had established a prescriptive easement across the 
Fillmore Street property for use of the left side sewer line.  
 
4 
 
The circuit court concluded that the previous owners of the 
Fillmore Street property “had knowledge of the presence of the 
[left side] sewer line and failed to object to its presence” 
for at least 20 years, and that the left side sewer line had 
provided continuous and uninterrupted service to the apartment 
building since 1940.  Hafner appeals. 
Hafner argues that Hansen did not establish a 
prescriptive easement because he failed to prove the required 
element of adverse use.  Hafner contends that a hidden, 
underground sewer line is not an open and notorious use of 
property for purposes of establishing an adverse use and that, 
therefore, the presence of such an underground pipe on a 
servient estate cannot support the establishment of a 
prescriptive easement. 
In response, Hansen argues that he proved the element of 
adverse use.  He contends that the plumbing records received 
in evidence established that Hafner’s predecessors in title 
were aware of the presence of the left side sewer line, and 
that they did not object to the use of that sewer line to 
provide service to the apartment building.  We disagree with 
Hansen’s arguments. 
Our standard of review of the circuit court’s judgment in 
this bench trial is well established.  We will not disturb 
that judgment unless it is plainly wrong or without evidence 
 
5 
 
to support it.  Code § 8.01-680; Johnson, 272 Va. at 730, 636 
S.E.2d at 390; Amstutz v. Everett Jones Lumber Corp., 268 Va. 
551, 558, 604 S.E.2d 437, 441 (2004); Martin v. Moore, 263 Va. 
640, 646, 561 S.E.2d 672, 676 (2002). 
A party claiming a prescriptive easement bears the burden 
of proving that easement by clear and convincing evidence.  
Amstutz, 268 Va. at 559, 604 S.E.2d at 441; Martin, 263 Va. at 
645, 561 S.E.2d at 675; Pettus v. Keeling, 232 Va. 483, 486, 
352 S.E.2d 321, 324 (1987).  To establish a prescriptive 
easement, the claimant must prove that use of the servient 
estate was adverse, under a claim of right, exclusive, 
continuous, uninterrupted, and with the knowledge and 
acquiescence of the owner of the servient estate.  Johnson, 
272 Va. at 730, 636 S.E.2d at 391; Amstutz, 268 Va. at 559, 
604 S.E.2d at 441; Martin, 263 Va. at 645, 561 S.E.2d at 675.  
The claimant also must prove that this use occurred for a 
period of at least 20 years.  Johnson, 272 Va. at 730, 636 
S.E.2d at 391; Amstutz, 268 Va. at 559, 604 S.E.2d at 441; 
Martin, 263 Va. at 645, 561 S.E.2d at 675. 
When a use is open, visible, and continuous throughout 
the required prescriptive period, the claimant is entitled to 
a presumption that the use arose adversely or under a claim of 
right.  Johnson, 272 Va. at 730, 636 S.E.2d at 391; Martin, 
263 Va. at 645, 561 S.E.2d at 676; Umbarger v. Phillips, 240 
 
6 
 
Va. 120, 124, 393 S.E.2d 198, 200 (1990); McNeil v. Kingrey, 
237 Va. 400, 404, 377 S.E.2d 430, 432 (1989).  The rationale 
for this presumption is that such use provided the owner of 
the servient estate with reasonable notice that a right 
adverse to his interest was being exercised.  Umbarger, 240 
Va. at 125-26, 393 S.E.2d at 200-01; see McNeil, 237 Va. at 
404, 377 S.E.2d at 432.  The claimant is not entitled to this 
presumption if the use is concealed.  Umbarger, 240 Va. at 
126, 393 S.E.2d at 201. 
In the present case, the parties agree that the left side 
sewer line was buried 11 feet underground and was not visible 
above ground.  Therefore, Hansen did not enjoy a presumption 
of adverse use and bore the burden of proving this element by 
clear and convincing evidence. 
To prove an adverse use of Hafner’s property, Hansen was 
required to show that he intentionally asserted a claim 
hostile to Hafner’s ownership rights.  Chaney v. Haynes, 250 
Va. 155, 159, 458 S.E.2d 451, 453 (1995).  Such proof of 
adverse use included a requirement that the use of the land 
was open and notorious, or that the servient landowner had 
actual knowledge of the use or reasonably should have 
discovered it.  4 Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property 
§ 34.10[2][f] (Michael A. Wolf, ed. 2000); see Umbarger, 240 
Va. at 125-26, 393 S.E.2d at 200-01. 
 
7 
 
Applying these principles, we conclude that the circuit 
court was plainly wrong in holding that Hansen established by 
clear and convincing evidence an adverse use of the Fillmore 
Street property giving rise to a prescriptive easement.  The 
plumbing records received in evidence showed that in 1940, the 
left side sewer line provided service to both properties.  
However, the evidence did not demonstrate that the Horrigans, 
the owners of the Fillmore Street property until 1944, had 
knowledge that the left side sewer line provided sewer service 
to the apartment building property. 
The records further showed that the left side sewer line 
was not used exclusively to provide service to the apartment 
building property until 1946.  At that time, the Walters 
installed a sewer tap to enable the right side sewer line to 
provide service to the Fillmore Street property.  Notably, 
this evidence failed to establish that the Walters were aware 
that the left side sewer line extended from the apartment 
building across their property or that this sewer line 
continued to be used for the benefit of the apartment building 
property. 
Even assuming, however, that the Walters had actual 
knowledge in 1946 that the left side sewer line provided 
service to the apartment building property, this knowledge was 
insufficient to establish an adverse use.  The Walters 
 
8 
 
conveyed the Fillmore Street property 17 years after that 
date, and Hansen failed to prove that the later owners of this 
property had any knowledge of, or reasonably should have 
discovered, the presence or use of the sewer line.  See Powell 
on Real Property § 34.10[2][f]; Umbarger, 240 Va. at 125-26, 
393 S.E.2d at 200-01. 
The evidence further showed that the land records for the 
Fillmore Street property do not contain any reference to the 
left side sewer line, and that this sewer line is buried 11 
feet underground and is not visible above the ground.  Thus, 
we conclude that, as a matter of law, Hansen failed to 
establish by clear and convincing evidence an adverse use of 
the left side sewer line for at least 20 years.  See Johnson, 
272 Va. at 730, 636 S.E.2d at 391; Amstutz, 268 Va. at 559, 
604 S.E.2d at 441; Martin, 263 Va. at 645, 561 S.E.2d at 675. 
Finally, we note that our holding is consistent with the 
decisions of courts in other jurisdictions.  As a general 
rule, when underground pipes have not been physically apparent 
throughout the prescriptive period and the servient landowner 
has not had notice of the existence of those pipes, courts 
have declined to recognize the establishment of a prescriptive 
easement.  See J. H. Crabb, Annotation, Easements by 
Prescription in Artificial Drains, Pipes, or Sewers, 55 
A.L.R.2d 1144 § 9[b] (1957); see e.g., City of Montgomery v. 
 
9 
 
Couturier, 373 So. 2d 625, 627 (Ala. 1979)(to prove 
prescriptive easement involving underground pipe, evidence 
must show visible condition placing landowner on notice of 
adverse occupation); Sullivan v. Neam, 183 A.2d 834, 834-35 
(D.C. 1962)(prescriptive easement not proved when servient 
estate owner lacked knowledge of private sewer line and 
property deeds failed to reveal line’s presence); Powell v. 
Dawson, 469 N.E.2d 1179, 1182 (Ind. App. 1984)(to prove 
prescriptive easement when use of underground drainage pipe 
not open to observation, claimant must show that servient 
tenant knew or should have known of existence of pipe); 
Maricle v. Hines, 247 S.W.2d 611, 613 (Tex. App. 1952)(failure 
to show that use of sewer line was open, notorious, and 
adverse or to establish that use was with knowledge of owners 
of servient property barred prescriptive easement); Fanti v. 
Welsh, 161 S.E.2d 501, 505-06 (W.Va. 1968)(prescriptive 
easement not established when use of sewer was not visible and 
not known to owner of burdened estate). 
For these reasons, we will reverse the circuit court’s 
holding that Hansen established a prescriptive easement for 
use of the left side sewer line and remand the case for a 
 
10 
 
determination whether Hafner is entitled to her requested 
relief.2 
Reversed and remanded. 
 
                     
2 Based on our holding, we do not reach Hafner’s remaining 
assignments of error regarding the form of Hansen’s pleading 
or the sufficiency of Hafner’s proof of monetary damages. 
 
11