Opinion ID: 2525514
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The prescriptive period begins to run when the use of the easement by the servient estate owner unreasonably interferes with use of the easement by the easement holder.

Text: As with a claim that an easement was created by prescription, [10] a party claiming that an easement was extinguished by prescription must prove continuous and open and notorious use of the easement area for a ten-year period by clear and convincing evidence. The more difficult question is what level of activity in the easement area by the servient estate owner is sufficiently adverse and hostile to trigger the prescriptive period. In contrast to a claimant for adverse possession or a prescriptive easement, a party claiming termination of an easement by prescription already has the right to use the area in question. Indeed, so long as the use is consistent with the rights granted in the easement, the owner of a servient estate may make substantial use of the easement area. [11] At what point, then, does use of the easement area by the owner of the servient estate cross the line from permissible to hostile and adverse so as to trigger the prescriptive period? We hold that the prescriptive period is triggered where the use of the easement unreasonably interfere[s] with the current or prospective use of the easement by the easement holder. [12] When satisfied, the various requirements of adverse possession, and similarly prescription, [13] serve to put [the property owner] on notice of the hostile nature of the possession so that he, the owner, may take steps to vindicate his rights by legal action. [14] Use of the easement that unreasonably interferes with the easement owner's enjoyment of the easement is adequate to give notice that the easement is under threat. [15] Moreover, such extensive use constitutes a distinct and positive assertion by the servient estate owner that his or her use of the easement is hostile to the rights of the easement holder and is not merely a permissive use. [16] This rule balances the rights of the servient estate owner to make use of the easement area consistent with the scope of the easement, encouraging productive use of easement areas, with the rights of the easement holder to enjoy the benefits of a recorded easement, providing assurance that minor activities in the easement area will not result in the termination of the easement. Determining what constitutes unreasonable interference, and thus triggers the prescriptive period, will be heavily fact dependent. Where the easement holder has not used the easement for some time, or at all, the servient estate owner enjoys wide latitude with respect to use of the easement area, and a showing of extensive activity will be required to demonstrate adversity. [17] As a general guideline, temporary improvements to an unused easement area that are easily and cheaply removed will not trigger the prescriptive period; permanent and expensive improvements that are difficult and damaging to remove will trigger the prescriptive period. [18] The burden on the servient estate owner to prove unreasonable interference with an unused easement is high, consistent with the policy of the 2003 legislative amendments that curtailedbut did not abolish claims of adverse possession. [19] We decline the Hansens' invitation to adopt as a general rule the even more restrictive test for termination of an unused easement by prescription first set forth in Castle Associates v. Schwartz that use by the owner of a property burdened by an easement is not hostile, even if it might prevent the easement holder from using the easement, until the easement holder has attempted to use the easement or a demand to use the easement has been refused. [20] While this rule has been adopted in other jurisdictions, [21] we do not find it to be most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy. Our jurisprudence concerning adverse possession and creation of easements by prescription imposes no analogous requirement that the property owner retake the property or unsuccessfully demand cessation of the claimant's use before the statutory period commences. In fact, any interruption in the claimant's possession or use could instead toll the running of the statutory period. [22] Furthermore, such a restrictive rule would allow an easement holder to maintain an easement in perpetuity by simply ignoring all communications from a servient estate owner wishing to purchase a release of an unused easement in order to build permanent improvements on the easement area. The rule we have adopted today best balances the rights of the interested parties. In this case, it is undisputed that the easement was unused by an easement holder from its creation until 2007. Beginning in 1985, the Davises built frames for and maintained a garden in the easement area, covering most of the easement by 1987. In 2003 the Davises built a greenhouse within the easement area. As a matter of law, the maintenance of a garden on the easement area did not constitute an improvement sufficiently adverse to commence the prescriptive period. [23] We need not decide whether construction of the greenhouse triggered the prescriptive period because ten years have not yet elapsed since it was built. Therefore, we conclude that the Hansens' easement was not extinguished by prescription.