Opinion ID: 2464541
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Price I and Price II describe the guiding principles for defining the scope of an easement by prescription.

Text: The creation of a public prescriptive easement requires the same elements as a private prescriptive easement, except that a public prescriptive easement requires qualifying use by the public, while a private prescriptive easement requires qualifying use only by the private party. [20] We have previously held that a prescriptive easement obtained by the general public gives the right of use to the public at large. [21] But this right of use is not unlimited; rather the public at large is constrained to using the easement only for those types of uses that led to its establishment. As we explained in Price I, [t]he scope of a prescriptive easement is defined narrowly to include only the `use that created the easement and closely related ancillary uses.' [22] In Price I we remanded this case with instructions to the superior court to delineate the scope of the prescriptive easement by imposing restrictions upon it, 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. [23] Price I explained that [b]ecause 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. [24] Price I also quoted the Restatement (Third) of Property to explain that a determination of an easement's scope should focus on 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. [25] Price I concluded: 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. [26] In Price II, we decided the brevity of the superior court's order on remand did not allow for meaningful review under Civil Rule 52(a). [27] We remanded the case again and directed the superior court to make specific factual findings regarding . . . the original purpose and use of the easement; any changes that have been made in the use of the easement; and, finally, the reasonableness of that change, taking into account such factors as the speed of the changes in use, damage to the estate, and the reasonable expectations of the servient landowner. [28] The superior court conducted an evidentiary hearing in 2006, after our decision in Price II. The superior court considered Price's testimony that a club of snowmachiners (the Snomads) leased a parking lot in 1996 and this allowed more of the club members to get to the trail that crosses his property. According to the superior court, some Snomads used the trail to access the recreational area in Caribou Hills. But the superior court also heard testimony that the Snomads built a nearby clubhouse in 2000 and that some of the snowmachiners who parked in the leased lot did not travel across Price's property, but instead traversed a different route to get to their clubhouse. In 2007, the superior court issued a ten-page memorandum opinion and order redefining the scope of the easement. The order described the permissible types of uses, the width of the trail, and the volume of use. The superior court found that [t]hose presently using the trail, and those who have used the trail [during the prescriptive period], primarily use snowmachines, but the trail has also seen some use by four-wheelers, hikers, persons training their sled dogs[,] and by occupants of the three residences located along the trail, hunters, and berry pickers. The superior court concluded that these uses all should be included in the public easement across Price's land. The superior court further found that although the volume of snowmachine traffic increased at some point after the easement was perfected, it may have later subsidedperhaps due to the construction of the Snomad's clubhouseand that overall the increase was not a significant burden on the servient estate.