Opinion ID: 2065981
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: facts indicating abandonment

Text: Having determined that the burden of proof did not shift to the Bohannons, we determine that the Muellers still have the burden of proof and must show additional facts indicating that the Bohannons or their predecessor easement holders, the Culvers, intended to abandon the easement, in order to prevail. The evidence proving abandonment must be clear and convincing. Koshian v. Kirchner, 139 A.D.2d 942, 527 N.Y.S.2d 921 (1988); Franck Bros., Inc. v. Rose, supra; 7 Thompson on Real Property, supra. The Muellers assert that additional facts in the record indicate an intent to abandon the actual easement. The Bohannons contend that the Muellers did nothing more than prove that the [Bohannons] were mistaken as to the true location of the easement and, instead of using the granted easement, used a roadway alongside of it. Brief for appellees the Bohannons and the McGowans at 5. On that basis, the Bohannons argue that the Muellers failed to produce sufficient evidence proving the Bohannons intended to abandon the easement. We first note that while the proof of nonuse is not sufficient to prove abandonment by itself, that proof is nonetheless objective evidence indicating that the Bohannons intended to abandon the easement. The strength of this evidence is heightened by the fact that the only other owners of the easement, the Culvers, also never used the easement. Thus, not only was this easement not used for about 17 years, it was never used. The easement was never cleared or prepared for potential use. The Muellers argue that the fact that the Culvers and McGowans accessed the property by means other than the easement created by the deed is evidence that they intended to abandon the property. We disagree. [T]he fact that the easement holder finds a more convenient alternative route does not deprive the easement holder of the easement that remains for the holder's use and enjoyment whenever the holder has occasion to use the right. Jackvony v. Poncelet, 584 A.2d 1112, 1117 (R.I.1991). See, Witt v. McKenna, 600 A.2d 105 (Me.1991); Scott v. Long Valley Farm Kentucky, Inc., 804 S.W.2d 15 (Ky.App.1991); Gagnon v. Carrier, 96 N.H. 409, 77 A.2d 868 (1951). Such is the case here. Additionally, the Muellers stated in their answer to the Bohannons' companion case that any use that the Bohannons made of the roadway was done with permission of the Muellers and their predecessors in title. The Bohannons' use of the roadway then was not an unequivocal act indicating an intent to abandon the actual easement. The Muellers next argue that the Culvers erected a fence along the north side of Tax Lot 21 which would block the existing easement and would be evidence of abandonment. Culver testified that a fence existed on the north side of Tax Lot 21. However, her testimony is unclear as to whether she meant that such a fence existed when the Culvers purchased the land, whether she meant they placed a fence there, or whether she was simply observing that a fence exists presently along the north side of Tax Lot 21, which is true. However, Bohannon testified at trial that he erected a fence along the north side Tax Lot 21. He stated: Q.... Now, with regard to Exhibit No. 22, would you point out to us where the fences are and when they were erected or if they were erected when you bought the property? A. No, I bought them. I put them up myself. .... Q. Is there a fence line on the north of tax lot 21? A. There is a fence line on the north side of 21 and on the west side of 21. .... Q. Now, you put all those fences up? A. Right. Q. When did you erect those fences? A. Whenever I got cattle. I can't tell you for sure what year that was. Q. Were there any fences in place in any of this area when you first bought the land? A. No. If an owner of an easement, by his own act, renders the use of the easement impossible, or himself obstructs it in a manner inconsistent with its further enjoyment, the easement will be considered as abandoned by him. Toelle v. Preuss, 172 Neb. 239, 241-42, 109 N.W.2d 293, 294 (1961). Bohannon's construction of the fence, then, is objective evidence of abandonment. After considering the Muellers' arguments and conducting a de novo review of the record, we conclude that the evidence of nonuse from the time of the easement's creation, combined with Bohannon's construction of a fence across the easement, is sufficiently clear and convincing evidence to show that the Bohannons intended to abandon the actual easement. However, the Bohannons argue that it would be logically impossible for them to [abandon the easement] because they did not know the location of the easement. Brief for appellees the Bohannons and the McGowans at 6. This argument misses the mark because if the Bohannons did not know of the actual location of the easement, they should have known. The deed of conveyance to the Bohannons expressly described the easement's location. The Court of Appeals determined, and it is the law of the case, that the McGowan-Culver deed's description of the easement was adequate. That description is identical to the easement description in the deed of conveyance to the Bohannons, as the Court of Appeals noted. A survey would have revealed the true location of the easement, as evidenced by the survey prepared for the trial in this case. However, the record indicates the Bohannons did not have a survey conducted when they purchased the property, nor did they rely on any survey. Equity aids the diligent and not the negligent. See, Abels v. Bennett, 158 Neb. 699, 64 N.W.2d 481 (1954); Peters v. Huff, 63 Neb. 99, 88 N.W. 179 (1901). The Bohannons had the means in their possession to obtain actual knowledge of the easement. See Abels v. Bennett, supra . Thus, we conclude on these facts that the Bohannons' stated lack of actual knowledge is not persuasive as to their argument.