Opinion ID: 1224024
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The route to the sand trap

Text: The most vigorously contested alleged easement is the route to the sand trap which passes within six feet of the Jordan home near the southeast corner of his property. Jordan maintains that the record below does not contain clear and convincing evidence supporting the trial court's finding that a prescriptive easement crossing the southeastern portion of his property had been established. We agree. First, there was insufficient proof of adverse use prior to Jordan's purchase of the property in 1989. Further, there was no visible path along the southeast corner of Jordan's property that would provide constructive notice that an easement existed. At trial, Jordan testified that he did not see a human path near his home leading south to the sand trap. Nor did Jordan witness anyone using the path during the six-month redemption period following the purchase of his property. Other than his encounter with Bailey, he claims that he recalls only one other Twaddle Ditch water user crossing his property to work on the water system. Bailey does not contend that the Twaddle Ditch water users have acquired these easements by necessity. Nevertheless, his argument has such overtones, particularly when he maintains that the other methods of reaching the sand trap were practically inaccessible. In Jackson v. Nash, 109 Nev. 1202, 866 P.2d 262 (1993), we examined the problems presented by claims of easement by necessity. There we noted that: Although Jackson may prefer the more convenient road through the Nashes' property, this preference is not sufficient for this court to impose an easement. An easement ought not be implied merely as a matter of convenience, especially when an acceptable and practical route constituting a lesser burden on the servient estate is available. Jackson, 109 Nev. at 1212, 866 P.2d at 269 (citation omitted). While we do not conclude that an easement by necessity was established, we believe that the reasoning in Jackson should apply by analogy to the creation of easements by prescription. Bailey testified that the other routes to the sand trap from the diversion dam, in particular, the route heading north from the Bowers' Fire Station, involved arduous climbing and undue consumption of time. In line with Jackson, we conclude that Bailey may not bootstrap a prescriptive easement along the southeastern portion of Jordan's property simply by claiming that, because of inconvenience, it is an integral part of the Twaddle Ditch system. This is especially true in light of the fact that there is a fourth, albeit revocable, convenient route. Bailey's ignorance of the route does not change its existence. Accordingly, we conclude that Bailey failed to proffer clear and convincing evidence that his use of the southeastern route running within six feet of Jordan's home was adverse. Thus, an easement by prescription was not established.