Opinion ID: 2010267
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Jolliffe's Prescriptive Easement Claim

Text: In his counterclaim and at trial, Jolliffe claimed a prescriptive easement over certain of Lakeland Estates' roads, and the district court agreed that Jolliffe was entitled to a prescriptive easement. On appeal, Jolliffe argues that the prescriptive easement was established by virtue of at least 30 years of use of such roads by prior owners of the parcel and that such use enures to Jolliffe's benefit. Brief for appellee at 20. Jolliffe bears the burden of proving, by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence, each of the elements of his claimed prescriptive easement. Simacek, supra ; Svoboda, supra . A review of the record shows that the evidence fails to support the element of adverse use, and accordingly, Jolliffe failed to carry his burden of proving a prescriptive easement by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. Mammel acquired the parcel in 1977 and testified that he used Lakeland Estates roads to access the parcel from 10 to 40 times a year. However, Mammel testified that he was given permission by Lake Arrowhead to access the parcel by means of the subdivision's roads. When asked at trial whether somebody from Lakeland Estates actually gave you permission to access the parcel using Lakeland roads, Mammel responded, [t]hat's correct. Although Mammel further testified that he did not seek permission each time he accessed the parcel through Lakeland Estates, his failure to repeatedly request permission does not amount to adverse use. [I]f the original use ... is by permission, it is presumed to so continue; continuance of a use which was originally permissive does not become hostile or adverse by a mere lapse of time. 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses § 65 at 633 (1996). It is undisputed that Lake Arrowhead erected a locked gate which blocked part of Mammel's route to the parcel and that Mammel was required to wait for a representative of the subdivision to unlock the gate and allow him access. Mammel's request for permission to access the parcel using Lakeland Estates roads and his acquiescence to Lake Arrowhead's use of a locked gate are inconsistent with Jolliffe's claim that Mammel's access to the parcel through Lakeland Estates was adverse. See 25 Am.Jur.2d, supra, § 62 at 630 (defining adverse use as trespassory use ... without permission asked or given, disregarding entirely the rights of others). Permissive use is not adverse. 25 Am. Jur.2d, supra, § 65. See, also, Simacek v. York County Rural P.P. Dist., 220 Neb. 484, 370 N.W.2d 709 (1985) (stating that defendant did not acquire prescriptive easement when use of land was by permission). `To prove a prescriptive right to an easement, all the elements of prescriptive use must be generally established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence....' (Emphasis supplied.) Svoboda v. Johnson, 204 Neb. 57, 62, 281 N.W.2d 892, 897 (1979), quoting Jurgensen v. Ainscow, 155 Neb. 701, 53 N.W.2d 196 (1952). Under our de novo standard of review, see Hillary Corp. v. United States Cold Storage, 250 Neb. 397, 550 N.W.2d 889 (1996), we determine that Jolliffe has failed to establish by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that Mammel's use of Lakeland Estates roads was adverse and that consequently, Jolliffe's use based on that of Mammel cannot be deemed a prescriptive easement. Accordingly, we conclude the district court erred in granting Jolliffe a prescriptive easement, and we reverse that portion of the district court's order.