Opinion ID: 2598373
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A Prescriptive Easement Exists Across Price's Land.

Text: Although Eastham claimed entitlement to a prescriptive easement in his complaint, the superior court initially declined to rule on that claim, finding instead that an RS 2477 right-of-way existed across Price's property. Later, however, in denying Price's motion for reconsideration on the RS 2477 ruling, the superior court held that a prescriptive easement existed over the land, finding that the public at large has been using the trail in a continued and uninterrupted manner for at least the ten years prior to the filing of this suit. Price moved for reconsideration of the prescriptive easement ruling. The court denied his motion. Price argues that the superior court erred in holding that a prescriptive easement exists over a corner of his property. His argument hinges upon AS 38.95.010 which provides: No prescription or statute of limitations runs against the title or interest of the state to land under the jurisdiction of the state. No title or interest to land under the jurisdiction of the state may be acquired by adverse possession or prescription, or in any manner except by conveyance from the state. Price asserts that because he only owned the agricultural interests in his land during the relevant time period [21] and because the state retained all other interests, any claim of a prescriptive easement across his land violates AS 38.95.010. [22] Because a prescriptive easement may be obtained where the holder of the servient property does not own the property in fee simple, but rather holds a lesser interest in the property, [23] Eastham's easement claim does not violate AS 38.95.010. A prescriptive easement may be claimed against an individual who holds less than a fee simple interest in the land, such as a leaseholder. [24] The Superior Court of New Jersey addressed this issue in Ludwig v. Gosline. [25] In Ludwig, the Gosline family claimed that they had acquired a prescriptive easement over a portion of their neighbors' property. [26] Both the Goslines and their neighbors leased their properties. [27] In holding that the easement existed, the court noted that the servient property holder need not own the fee. [28] An easement by prescription may be obtained against the holder of a present interest subject to divestment if and when the property passes to the holder of a future interest. [29] Price, like the Goslines, did not own his land in fee simple; he only owned the agricultural interest in the land. The land patent that the state conveyed to Price in 1988 contained the condition subsequent that if Price used the property for non-agricultural purposes, the state could enter Price's property and terminate the estate it granted to him. Even though he did not own the land in fee simple, Ludwig shows that Eastham's prescriptive easement claim is valid, but only against Price's ownership interest. The trial court considered the limits of Price's ownership interest in its order denying reconsideration of the easement holding. Judge Brown held that although the patent requires that the land be used for agricultural purposes, the court sees no inconsistency between the requirement of agricultural use and the kind of recreational use at issue in this case. Whether the use of an easement is inconsistent with the servient owner's use of his land is a question of fact. [30] Judge Brown's conclusion that recreational use of the trail is not inconsistent with Price's agricultural use of his land was not clearly erroneous. The Supreme Court of Virginia addressed a similar issue in Preshlock v. Brenner . In Preshlock, Janet Brenner owned land subject to a municipal storm sewer easement. [31] The Preshlocks owned the lot next to Brenner. A driveway ran from the street, over a corner of Brenner's property to the Preshlocks' property. The Preshlocks claimed a prescriptive easement over the portion of driveway on Brenner's land. One of Brenner's predecessors in title had conveyed to the city an easement for a storm sewer located under the part of Brenner's lot in which the Preshlocks claimed an easement. The trial court held as a matter of law that the Preshlocks could not acquire a prescriptive easement in the land because no prescriptive right can be acquired in property affected with a public interest or dedicated to a public use. [32] The Virginia court reversed this ruling, holding that the Preshlocks could acquire a prescriptive easement in the land, despite the presence of the city's easement. [33] The court reasoned that Brenner could make any use of her property that did not unreasonably interfere with the city's easement and that she could grant this right to a third party. [34] The court noted that the Preshlocks conceded that their prescriptive rights would be subject to the city's rights and could not interfere with the city's easement. [35] As with Brenner, Price owns land subject to government interests. Eastham, like the Preshlocks, does not claim a prescriptive easement against those government interests, but against Price. [36] While Price must use his property for agricultural purposes, as long as he satisfies that condition of his patent he can presumably make any other use of his property. Price could grant an easement or alternatively have a prescriptive easement granted against him, that does not interfere with his mandate to use the land for agricultural purposes. Accordingly, we affirm the superior court's finding that a public prescriptive easement exists over Price's land. Because the prescriptive easement was an alternative ruling for the trial court, it did not discuss the easement's scope. The scope of a prescriptive easement is defined narrowly to include only the use that created the easement and closely related ancillary uses. [37] Because an easement directly affects ownership rights in the servient tenement, judicial delineation of the extent of an easement by prescription should be undertaken with great caution. [38] According to the Restatement (Third) of Property, determining the extent of a prescriptive easement should focus on the servient estate owner's reasonable expectations: The relevant inquiry is what a landowner in the position of the owner of the servient estate should reasonably have expected to lose by failing to interrupt the adverse use before the prescriptive period had run. [39] Although the use made of a prescriptive easement may evolve beyond the original prescriptive uses, new uses cannot substantially increase the burden on the servient estate or change the nature and character of the easement's original use. [40] Courts have restricted the scope of prescriptive easements significantly to limit the burden on the servient estate. For example, courts have limited use of prescriptive easements to specific times of the year [41] and have limited the width of prescriptive easements. [42] In considering a prescriptive easement for recreational purposes, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine limited the use of the easement to the general recreational purposes for which the road was used during the period that the prescriptive easement was being created. [43] The court reversed the trial court's restriction of the easement to travel for recreational purposes as overly broad, reasoning that vaguely defined recreational purposes could lead to excessive burdening of the servient estate. [44] Therefore, the court remanded the case for a more specific delineation of permissible uses of the prescriptive easement. [45] Because the superior court did not define the extent of the prescriptive easement over Price's land, we remand for a determination of the scope of this easement. The court is free to impose restrictions upon the easement consistent with the Restatement (Third) and this decision, including, for example, limiting use to certain seasons, prescribing the width of the easement, and specifying the precise uses that may be made of the easement.