Opinion ID: 882922
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: WYNIAS v. EKMANS AND KELLENBERGER

Text: Wynias contend they had perfected an easement by prescription across Ekmans' and Kellenberger's properties on the skid trail near the lake. They further state that they had established that their use was open, notorious, exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted, creating the presumption that their use was adverse. They believe there was insufficient evidence to show that their use was permissive, especially given that they established the presumption of adverse use. Ekmans and Kellenberger counter that the presumption in this case is that the use is permissive. To be adverse, the use of the alleged easement must be exercised under a claim of right and not as a mere privilege or license revocable at the pleasure of the owner of the land; such claim must be known to, and acquiesced in by, the owner of the land. Keebler, 807 P.2d at 1356-1357. (Citation omitted.) District courts sitting as fact finders occupy the best position to determine if the use was permissive or adverse. Granite County v. Komberec (1990), 245 Mont. 252, 258, 800 P.2d 166, 169. Dr. Wynia described a neighborly and cordial relationship between himself and Dr. Ferree, the original owner of the subdivision. He testified to social visits by Dr. Ferree and wrote that Dr. Ferree had been considerate with us in the past. Perhaps most telling of all is Dr. Wynia's answer when Mr. Murray, attorney for the Ekmans and Kellenberger, asked So you said, `Doctor Ferree, I'd like to be able to continue to use that lower skid trail road, true?' Dr. Wynia replied, True. Dr. Ferree responded that We'll talk about it. Bring an attorney out and we'll look at drawing up the easements. Dr. Wynia appears to be asking for continued permission to use the skid trail road. The trier of fact is in the best position to hear the testimony and observe the witnesses and their demeanor... . Particularly where credibility of witnesses is involved, we give great weight to fact-findings of a district court. Scott v. Eagle Watch Investments, Inc. (1991), 251 Mont. 191, 195, 828 P.2d 1346, 1349. A use of a neighbor's land based upon mere neighborly accommodation or courtesy is not adverse and cannot ripen into a prescriptive easement. Thus where the use of a way by a neighbor was by express or implied permission of the owner, it was held that the continuous use of the way by the neighbor was not adverse and did not ripen into a prescriptive right. Wilson v. Chesttnut (1974), 164 Mont. 484, 491, 525 P.2d 24, 27. This Court concludes that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that the Wynias' use of the skid trail road was permissive from its inception. The trial court did not misapprehend the evidence nor was the finding of permissiveness clearly erroneous.