Opinion ID: 1224024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Three Prescriptive Easements [3]

Text: In Nevada, adverse, continuous, open and peaceable use for a five-year period are the requisite elements for claiming an easement by prescription. Stix v. La Rue, 78 Nev. 9, 11, 368 P.2d 167, 168 (1962). Exclusivity is not a requisite element. Id. at 14, 368 P.2d at 169. Adverse use is established by asserting a right to use the land. Michelsen v. Harvey, 107 Nev. 859, 863, 822 P.2d 660, 663 (1991). The standard of proof in establishing an easement by prescription is clear and convincing evidence. Wilfon v. Hampel 1985 Trust, 105 Nev. 607, 608, 781 P.2d 769, 770 (1989). Bailey argues that he and his predecessors in interest perfected the easements before Jordan acquired his property in 1989. Bailey maintains that Twaddle Ditch users exercised their water rights from 1856 until the flood of 1983 destroyed the old diversion dam. Because the flood required the construction of a new diversion structure, access road and pipeline, Bailey was attempting to acquire easements by prescription along post-1983 routes. Bailey maintains that the Twaddle Ditch water users openly, continuously and adversely crossed the Jordan tract without interruption from 1983 until 1992, when Jordan started to block their access. Thus, the factual dispute was when and if these routes were adversely, continuously, openly and peaceably used for a five-year period.

The most vigorously contested alleged easement is the route to the sand trap which passes within six feet of the Jordan home near the southeast corner of his property. Jordan maintains that the record below does not contain clear and convincing evidence supporting the trial court's finding that a prescriptive easement crossing the southeastern portion of his property had been established. We agree. First, there was insufficient proof of adverse use prior to Jordan's purchase of the property in 1989. Further, there was no visible path along the southeast corner of Jordan's property that would provide constructive notice that an easement existed. At trial, Jordan testified that he did not see a human path near his home leading south to the sand trap. Nor did Jordan witness anyone using the path during the six-month redemption period following the purchase of his property. Other than his encounter with Bailey, he claims that he recalls only one other Twaddle Ditch water user crossing his property to work on the water system. Bailey does not contend that the Twaddle Ditch water users have acquired these easements by necessity. Nevertheless, his argument has such overtones, particularly when he maintains that the other methods of reaching the sand trap were practically inaccessible. In Jackson v. Nash, 109 Nev. 1202, 866 P.2d 262 (1993), we examined the problems presented by claims of easement by necessity. There we noted that: Although Jackson may prefer the more convenient road through the Nashes' property, this preference is not sufficient for this court to impose an easement. An easement ought not be implied merely as a matter of convenience, especially when an acceptable and practical route constituting a lesser burden on the servient estate is available. Jackson, 109 Nev. at 1212, 866 P.2d at 269 (citation omitted). While we do not conclude that an easement by necessity was established, we believe that the reasoning in Jackson should apply by analogy to the creation of easements by prescription. Bailey testified that the other routes to the sand trap from the diversion dam, in particular, the route heading north from the Bowers' Fire Station, involved arduous climbing and undue consumption of time. In line with Jackson, we conclude that Bailey may not bootstrap a prescriptive easement along the southeastern portion of Jordan's property simply by claiming that, because of inconvenience, it is an integral part of the Twaddle Ditch system. This is especially true in light of the fact that there is a fourth, albeit revocable, convenient route. Bailey's ignorance of the route does not change its existence. Accordingly, we conclude that Bailey failed to proffer clear and convincing evidence that his use of the southeastern route running within six feet of Jordan's home was adverse. Thus, an easement by prescription was not established.
In Chollar-Potosi Mining Co. v. Kennedy & Keating, 3 Nev. 328 (1867), this court held that an adverse use may be inferred where a claimant establishes a roadway on another's property. Id. at 340; Wilfon, 105 Nev. at 609, 781 P.2d at 770. A permissive use cannot ripen into an adverse use absent specific notice to the owner of the servient estate that such use is henceforth adverse for purposes of creating a prescriptive easement. Green v. Stansfield, 886 P.2d 117, 120-21 (Utah.Ct.App.1994). Although permission to use another's property negates adverse use, we agree with Bailey that adversity was created by the existence of the roadway on the northern portion of Jordan's property. See Chollar-Potosi, 3 Nev. at 340. In addition, Rusk gave conflicting testimony as to whether the previous owner of the Jordan tract gave permission to install the new diversion works and access road across the northern section of the property. Here, the trial court was free, as the finder of fact, to accept whatever version given by Rusk was the most credible. In this determination, it was appropriate to conclude that the construction and use of the road was not obtained via permission from the prior owner. Thus, the trial court acted within its discretion when it concluded that the utilization of the northern portion of Jordan's property was adverse. The remaining question to resolve is whether these two routes satisfy the other elements of an easement by prescription.
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.