Opinion ID: 2554259
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim of Right Adverse to Owner

Text: [¶ 16] The party claiming a prescriptive easement must prove that she has used the property under a claim of right that is adverse to the owner. Jordan, 2002 ME 36, ¶ 22, 791 A.2d at 122. Using the property under a claim of right means that the claimant must be in possession as the owner, intending to claim the land as [her] own, and may not be in recognition of or subordination to the record title owner. Id. ¶ 23, 791 A.2d at 122. The claimant's use of the property is adverse to the owner only when the claimant has received no permission from the owner of the soil, and uses the way as the owner would use it, disregarding [the owner's] claims entirely, using it as though [she] owned the property [her]self. Stickney v. City of Saco, 2001 ME 69, ¶ 21, 770 A.2d 592, 602; see also Jordan, 2002 ME 36, ¶ 23, 791 A.2d at 122-23. [7] [¶ 17] Although we have held that, when the first and third elements of a private prescriptive easement are established, as we assume they are in this case, a presumption arises that the use of the property was under a claim of right adverse to the owner, see Lyons v. Baptist Sch. of Christian Training, 2002 ME 137, ¶ 18, 804 A.2d 364, 370, the presumption will not arise if there is an explanation of the use that contradicts the rationale of the presumption. Jacobs v. Boomer, 267 A.2d 376, 378 (Me. 1970) (presumption applies unless contradicted or explained); Burnham v. Burnham, 130 Me. 409, 411, 156 A. 823, 824 (1931). [¶ 18] When, as here, the dominant and servient estates were owned within the same family during the period in which the prescriptive right of access is alleged to have accrued, application of such a presumption that shifts the burden of proof is inappropriate. Absent evidence to the contrary, the law will infer that comings and goings of family members, across property owned within the family, are by accommodation or permission and do not have the requisite adversity to support imposition of a prescriptive easement by one family member upon another. See, e.g., 4 Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property § 34.10[2][c] (2005) (the presumption of adversity is inapplicable when the landowner and user have a relationship, such as a close blood relationship, such that the landowner is reasonably entitled to regard the use as permissive unless specifically informed of the contrary fact). [¶ 19] Under the facts of this case and our decision in Hamlin v. Niedner , no presumption applied to shift the burden of proof to Androkites, because White's historical use of the Shore Path in a manner that, had the use been by a stranger, might appear to have been under a claim of right adverse to the owner, was explained by the family relationship. Placement of the burden of proof on the family member asserting adversity is consistent with our view that in a civil case, the party to a proceeding who has better access to information and is seeking the benefit or protection of a law has the burden of proof on that point. See In re Trever I., 2009 ME 59, ¶ 13, 973 A.2d 752, 756; Dowley v. Morency, 1999 ME 137, ¶ 11, 737 A.2d 1061, 1066; see also United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R.R. Co., 355 U.S. 253, 256 n. 5, 78 S.Ct. 212, 2 L.Ed.2d 247 (1957) (The ordinary rule, based on considerations of fairness, does not place the burden upon a litigant of establishing facts peculiarly within the knowledge of his adversary.). Family members would know what past adversity may have affected use of family property. A stranger from outside the family would not. [¶ 20] Hamlin involved, in relevant part, the parties' claim of title by adverse possession to land owned by a family member. 2008 ME 130, ¶¶ 1, 3, 955 A.2d at 252, 253. To acquire title by adverse possession, the claimant must prove that the possession and use of the property was actual, open, visible, notorious, hostile, under a claim of right, continuous, exclusive, and for a duration exceeding twenty years. Id. ¶ 10, 955 A.2d at 254. Observing that [t]he law generally disfavors findings of adverse possession, and that [t]here is every presumption that the occupancy is in subordination to the true title, we held that when property is or had been held within one family, the burden of establishing hostility is greater. Id. ¶¶ 11, 13, 955 A.2d at 255. We further held that [w]hen parties have a familial relationship, there must be clear proof of hostility and actual notice to the true owner to satisfy the hostility requirement and transfer title by adverse possession. Id. ¶ 13, 955 A.2d at 255. [¶ 21] Contrary to the Whites' contention that the element of hostility, which was at the heart of our analysis in Hamlin, is not an element of a prescriptive easement claim, the element of hostility is present in prescriptive easement law, characterized as adversity in the a claim of right adverse to the owner element. [8] See Jordan, 2002 ME 36, ¶ 31, 791 A.2d at 124; see also Glidden v. Belden, 684 A.2d 1306, 1318 n. 20 (Me. 1996); 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses § 56 (2004) (Generally, the hostile and adverse character of the use necessary to establish an easement by prescription is the same as that which is necessary to establish title by adverse possession.). We reiterate that, whether discussing prescriptive easements or adverse possession, the element of hostility or adversity does not require a heated controversy or a manifestation of ill will toward the owner. [9] Lyons, 2002 ME 137, ¶ 26, 804 A.2d at 372 (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 22] Accordingly, our holding in Hamlin is applicable to this case involving a claim of a prescriptive easement. When a prescriptive easement is claimed as between family members, the prescriptive easement claimant may not rely upon a presumption of use under a claim of right adverse to the owner when the other elements of a prescriptive claim are proved; and the prescriptive user instead bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she used the land under a claim of right in a manner adverse to the owner, which requires proof of adversity and actual notice to the true owner. See, e.g., 4 Richard R. Powell, Powell on Real Property § 34.10[2][c] (2005). [¶ 23] Because the record supports the court's findings that the Whites (1) did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that they used the Shore Path maintaining a claim of right adverse to the owner of what is now the Androkites Property, see Jordan, 2002 ME 36, ¶ 22, 791 A.2d at 122, and (2) failed to show actual adversity and notice to the family members who owned the property during the relevant period, see Hamlin, 2008 ME 130, ¶¶ 13-14, 955 A.2d at 255, we affirm the court's finding that the Whites did not prove a prescriptive easement. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.