Opinion ID: 1224024
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Continuous, open and peaceable use for a five-year period

Text: We are not persuaded by Bailey's argument that Jordan would have been apprised of the existence of the water rights to the appurtenant properties had he obtained title insurance or diligently examined the records of the Nevada State Engineer. Even if Jordan had obtained title insurance and searched the records of the Nevada State Engineer, he would not have been alerted to the existence of the alleged easements because there was no record of them. Jordan argues that the several instances following the 1983 flood when the easements were inaccessible prevent the establishment of these easements by prescription. Jordan recounts that, in 1985, access to the diversion structure was blocked for a period of three days while a nearby landowner installed underground electrical lines; that in 1987 or 1988, access to the diversion structure was blocked for one week during the reconstruction of the Ophir Creek bridge; and that access was interrupted for a period of ten days when Smithson installed underground power lines. Jordan maintains that these incidents disrupted the required five years of continuous use. [4] However, no authority is cited in support of the proposition that these brief interruptions negated the requisite element of continuity for purposes of acquiring an easement by prescription. We conclude that easements by prescription were satisfactorily established with respect to the access road and the portion of the water system traversing the northern section of Jordan's property.