Opinion ID: 2390586
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Law of Prescriptive Easements

Text: An easement is a right that one person has to use the land of another person, for a specific purpose. Cobb v. Daugherty, 225 W.Va. 435, 441, 693 S.E.2d 800, 806 (2010). The land benefitting from an easement is called the dominant estate; the land burdened by an easement is called the servient estate.  Newman v. Michel, 224 W.Va. 735, 740-41, 688 S.E.2d 610, 615-16 (2009). The general rule (with several exceptions not important to the instant case) is that an easement can be created in three ways: by prescriptionthe easement equivalent of adverse possession; by an express grant or reservation; or ... by implication from the particular set of facts and circumstances. Cobb, 225 W.Va. at 441, 693 S.E.2d at 806 (quotations and footnotes omitted). A prescriptive easement arises through the adverse use of another person's land. There is a similarity between the elements which must be shown to establish a prescriptive easement and those necessary for adverse possession. Veach v. Day, 172 W.Va. 276, 278, 304 S.E.2d 860, 863 (1983) ( per curiam ). The main distinction between adverse possession and a prescriptive easement is that an adverse possession claimant occupies or possesses the disputed land, whereas one seeking a prescriptive easement makes some easement-like limited use of the disputed land. Newman v. Michel, 224 W.Va. at 743, 688 S.E.2d at 618. [7] Prescriptive easements are based on the notion that if one uses the property of another for a certain period without permission and the owner fails to prevent such use, the prolonged usage should be treated as conclusive evidence that the use is by right. Jon W. Bruce & James W. Ely, Jr., The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land, § 5:1 (2010). Prescription doctrine rewards the long-time user of property and penalizes the property owner who sleeps on his or her rights. In its positive aspect, the rationale for prescription is that it rewards the person who has made productive use of the land, it fulfills expectations fostered by long use, and it conforms titles to actual use of the property. The doctrine protects the expectations of purchasers and creditors who act on the basis of the apparent ownerships suggested by the actual uses of the land. Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes), § 2.17, cmt. c. [I]ts underlying philosophy is basically that land use has historically been favored over disuse, and that therefore he who uses land is preferred in the law to he who does not, even though the latter is the rightful owner. Finley v. Yuba County Water Dist., 99 Cal.App.3d 691, 696, 160 Cal.Rptr. 423, 427 (3d.Dist.1979). The doctrine of prescriptive easements reflect[s] the philosophy that established patterns of land possession and use should be protected and that a diligent occupant should be rewarded at the expense of a careless owner. Bruce & Ely, The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land, § 5.1. [8] In West Virginia, the case that firmly established the fundamental elements of the prescriptive easement doctrine is Town of Paden City v. Felton, 136 W.Va. 127, 66 S.E.2d 280 (1951). [9] In Syllabus Point 1 of Town of Paden City, we stated the following rule: To establish an easement by prescription there must be continued and uninterrupted use or enjoyment for at least ten years, identity of the thing enjoyed, and a claim of right adverse to the owner of the land, known to and acquiesced in by him; but if the use is by permission of the owner, an easement is not created by such use. Stated another way, As to an easement by prescription, the requisites for its acquisition are continued and uninterrupted, open and visible, use of a definite right in the land of another which is identical to that claimed as an easement and has a relation to the use of, and a direct and apparent connection with, the dominant tenement under an adverse claim of right, for the prescriptive period of time. Town of Paden City, 136 W.Va. at 137, 66 S.E.2d at 286. In West Virginia, the prescriptive period of timeten yearsderives from the statute of limitation for property disputes, W.Va.Code, 55-2-1 [1923] (No person shall make an entry on, or bring an action to recover, any land, but within ten years next after the time at which the right to make such entry or to bring such action shall have first accrued to himself or to some person through whom he claims.). Professors Bruce and Ely state the prescriptive easement doctrine this way: [G]enerally a person claiming [a prescriptive] easement must show the following: adverse, open and notorious, continuous and uninterrupted use of another's land for the period of prescription. The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land, § 5.2 (footnotes omitted). See also, Restatement (First) of Property, § 457 (An easement is created by such use of land, for the period of prescription, as would be privileged if an easement existed, provided the use is (a) adverse, and (b) for the period of prescription, continuous and uninterrupted.). [10] Our examination of our prior cases applying the doctrine of prescriptive easements reveals a lack of any clear enunciation of the meanings of the concepts underlying the doctrine. The range and redundancy of terms and requirements reflect the diversity of theories that have contributed to the making of American prescription doctrine. Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes), § 2.17, cmt. g. Justice Miller once said that while it seems it is a mere truism to say that the doctrine of adverse possession is firmly established in our law, in fact when one attempts an orderly assessment of the doctrine through the cases, it is at best an arduous task. Somon v. Murphy Fabrication & Erection Co., 160 W.Va. 84, 89, 232 S.E.2d 524, 528 (1977). In Somon, Justice Miller attempted to refine and clearly establish the meaning of the concepts underlying the doctrine of adverse possession. Like the Court in Somon, we will now attempt to set out definitions of the elements necessary to establish a prescriptive easement, definitions intended to guide a finder of fact. We recognize, however, that these definitions are at best fragile guidelines to outline in a general way the elements of [prescriptive easements], which in the main cannot be naturally compartmentalized in a given case. They serve only as a beginning point[.] 160 W.Va. at 92, 232 S.E.2d at 529. (1) Elements of the Prescriptive Easement Doctrine To begin, after carefully considering the doctrine of prescriptive easements, we believe that the better expression of the doctrine is this: a person claiming a prescriptive easement must prove each of the following elements: (1) the adverse use of another's land; (2) that the adverse use was continuous and uninterrupted for at least ten years; (3) that the adverse use was actually known to the owner of the land, or so open, notorious and visible that a reasonable owner of the land would have noticed the use; and (4) the reasonably identified starting point, ending point, line, and width of the land that was adversely used, and the manner or purpose for which the land was adversely used. (2) Burden of Proof The degree of proof necessary to establish a prescriptive easement is clear and convincing evidence. As we said in Syllabus Point 2 of Beckley Nat. Exchange Bank v. Lilly, 116 W.Va. 608, 182 S.E. 767 (1935): In order to establish a right of way by prescription, all of the elements of prescriptive use, including the fact that the use relied upon is adverse, must appear by clear and convincing proof. See also, Syllabus Point 1 of Berkeley Development Corp. v. Hutzler, 159 W.Va. 844, 229 S.E.2d 732 (1976) (The burden of proving an easement rests on the party claiming such right and must be established by clear and convincing proof.); Syllabus Point 1, Fanti v. Welsh, 152 W.Va. 233, 161 S.E.2d 501 (1968) (A landowner who asserts the right to an easement by prescription over the land of another must establish such right by clear and convincing proof.); Ely & Bruce, The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land, § 5:3 ([T]he burden of proving the existence of a prescriptive easement rests on the claimant, and doubt will be resolved in favor of the landowner.). `[C]lear and convincing' is the measure or degree of proof that will produce in the mind of the factfinder a firm belief or conviction as to the allegations sought to be established. Brown v. Gobble, 196 W.Va. 559, 564, 474 S.E.2d 489, 494 (1996), citing Wheeling Dollar Sav. & Trust Co. v. Singer, 162 W.Va. 502, 510, 250 S.E.2d 369, 374 (1978). `Clear and convincing evidence' or `clear, cogent and convincing evidence' is the highest possible standard of civil proof[.] ... It is intermediate, being more than a mere preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. Cramer v. West Virginia Dept. of Highways, 180 W.Va. 97, 99 n. 1, 375 S.E.2d 568, 570 n. 1 (1988) ( per curiam ). [11] Prescriptive easements are not favored in the law. [12] It is axiomatic that easements by prescription are not favored in law because they necessarily work losses or forfeitures of the rights of others. Zimmerman v. Newport, 416 P.2d 622, 629 (Okl. 1966). In this important matter, of subjecting, without pay, one man's land for the use of another, we must remember that the claimant carries the burden of proof, and he must show a use as of right, a hostile, adversary use, clearly show it. Crosier v. Brown, 66 W.Va. at 277, 66 S.E. at 328. Each ... element[] ... must be established as a necessary, independent, ultimate fact, the burden of showing which is on the party asserting the prescriptive title, and the failure to find any one of such elements [is] fatal ..., for such failure to find is construed as a finding against it. Carnahan v. Moriah Property Owners Ass'n, Inc., 716 N.E.2d 437, 441-42 (Ind.1999), quoting Monarch Real Estate Co. v. Frye, 77 Ind.App. 119, 124-25, 133 N.E. 156, 158 (1921). The absence of any one or all of such requisites will defeat a claim of a right to an easement by prescription. Fanti v. Welsh, 152 W.Va. at 236, 161 S.E.2d at 503. Accordingly, we hold that a person claiming a prescriptive easement must establish each element of prescriptive use as a necessary and independent fact by clear and convincing evidence, and the failure to establish any one element is fatal to the claim. We now turn to the definitions of the four elements that a person claiming a prescriptive easement is required to establish. (3) Adverse Use of Another's Land Defined A person claiming a prescriptive easement must first show that his or her use of the servient estate was adverse to the rights of the true owner. Without the requirement of adversity, licenses would grow into grants of the fee, and permissive occupations of land become conveyances of it. `It would shock that sense of right,' Chief Justice Marshall said ... `if a possession which was permissive and entirely consistent with the title of another should silently bar that title.' District of Columbia v. Robinson, 180 U.S. 92, 100, 21 S.Ct. 283, 45 L.Ed. 440 (1901), quoting Kirk v. Smith ex dem Penn, 22 U.S. 241, 9 Wheat. 241, 288, 6 L.Ed. 81 (1824). But what does adverse truly mean? `Adverse use' is a complex concept[.] [13] Our cases discussing prescriptive easements have lobbed around the words adverse and hostile, but have never attempted to posit a forthright definition to guide a finder of fact. [14] Many of our early cases are tarnished with a residue of terminology that often confuses modern analysis. Fisher, A Survey of the Law of Easements in West Virginia, 112 W.Va.L.Rev. at 675. [15] This problem is not unique to West Virginia. As a Utah court said over six decades ago, [t]he courts are not in accord as to the exact meaning of `adverse use' when applied to prescriptive easements, and great confusion exists as a result of the courts' unfortunate choice of words in characterizing the use necessary to initiate a prescriptive right. Zollinger v. Frank, 110 Utah 514, 516-17, 175 P.2d 714, 715 (1946). [16] Moreover, instead of defining adverse use, in many of our early cases this Court simply presumed that a claimant's use of another's property was adverse, if the claimant had otherwise proven the remaining elements of the prescriptive easement doctrine. In doing so, the Court shifted the burden of proof from the claimant to the landowner, who had to prove that the servient estate had not been used adversely ( e.g., the land had been used with permission). [17] Stated another way, while this Court has said the burden of proof is upon the claimant of a prescriptive easement to prove adverse use of another's land for ten years (by clear and convincing evidence, no less), at the same time we have also said that it is the landowner who bears the burden of proving that the claimant's use was not adverse, [18] if the claimant merely showed ten years of continuous use of the land. This Court has neveruntil this caseaddressed or attempted to explain this incongruity in our law. The term adverse use does not imply that the person claiming a prescriptive easement has animosity, personal hostility, or ill will toward the landowner; the uncommunicated mental state of the person is irrelevant. Instead, adverse use is measured by the observable actions and statements of the person claiming a prescriptive easement and the owner of the land. [19] Kellison v. McIsaac, 131 N.H. 675, 680, 559 A.2d 834, 837 (1989) (subjective intent of adverse claimant does not determine validity of prescriptive claim); Dunbar v. Heinrich, 95 Wash.2d 20, 27, 622 P.2d 812, 816 (1980) ([A]dversity is to be measured by an objective standard; that is, by the objectively observable acts of the user and the rightful owner.); Bills v. Nunno, 4 Mass.App.Ct. 279, 284 346 N.E.2d 718, 723 (1976) (`Adverseness' is found in the actual use made of the way by the claimant of the easement: the claimant's uncommunicated mental state is immaterial.). Adverse use generally means the use of property as the owner himself would exercise, entirely disregarding the claims of others, asking permission from no one[.] Malnati v. Ramstead, 50 Wash.2d 105, 108, 309 P.2d 754 (1957). Use of a servient estate is adverse when a party ... has received no permission from the owner of the soil, and uses the way as the owner would use it, disregarding his claims entirely, using it as though he owned the property himself. Blanchard v. Moulton, 63 Me. 434, 437 (1873). Our examination of authoritative texts, treatises, Dean Fisher's authoritative article on easements in West Virginia [20] , and cases from other jurisdictions indicates that an adverse use of land is, at its root, one that is against the rights of the landowner as distinguished from one that is under the rights of the landowner. Hostile use of real property by an occupant or user ... imports that the claimant is possessing or using it as owner, in contradistinction to possessing or using the real property in recognition of or subordinate to the title of the true owner. Malnati v. Ramstead, 50 Wash.2d at 108, 309 P.2d at 756. A claimant is adversely using another's land when he assert[s] an independent and individual right in himself to use the way and ... the right to do so did not depend upon a similar right to such use in other persons. Town of Paden City v. Felton, 136 W.Va. at 140, 66 S.E.2d at 288. [21] The Restatement offers the following definition of the term adverse: An adverse use ... is a use made without the consent of the landowner, or holder of the property interest used, and without other authorization. Adverse uses create causes of action in tort for interference with property rights. The causes of action are usually actions for trespass, nuisance, or waste. Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes), § 2.16, cmt. b. The Restatement goes on to say: To be adverse ... a use must create a cause of action for interference with an interest in property like trespass, nuisance, or interference with a servitude benefit. To be adverse, the use must be made without authority and without permission of the property owner. Thus, uses made pursuant to licenses are not adverse, nor are uses made pursuant to servitudes created expressly, by implication, or by necessity. Id., cmt. f. [22] Professors Bruce and Ely give a comparable definition of adverse use: Adversity does not imply animosity or personal hostility, but simply requires that the use of another's land be wrongful and without regard to the rights of the owner.... A use is adverse if it gives rise to a cause of action. No prescriptive easement may be created unless the landowner is able to prevent the wrongful use by resort to law. Bruce & Ely, The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land, § 5:8. Our case law has made it clear that if the claimant made use of the servient estate with the owner's permission, then the use was not adverse. See, e.g., Syllabus Point 1, Town of Paden City v. Felton, supra (if the use is by permission of the owner, an easement [by prescription] is not created by such use.); Syllabus Point 2, Crosier v. Brown, supra (If the use is by his permission... title to the easement does not come by such use.). When a property owner gives another person permission to use his or her property, the law implies that a license was intended. Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes), cmt. f. Unless additional facts suggest otherwise, it is assumed that the parties intended that the property owner retain the right to revoke the license at any time. Boyd v. Woolwine, 40 W.Va. 282, 286, 21 S.E. 1020, 1021 (1895) ([T]he mere permission by the owner of the land to the public to pass over the road is, without more, to be regarded as a license revocable at his pleasure.). [23] See also, Linger v. Watson, 108 W.Va. 180, 183-84, 150 S.E. 525, 527 (1929) (When the plaintiff demanded removal of telephone lines across plaintiff's land, the defendant sought to establish the lines had created a prescriptive easement. The Court concluded the defendant failed to establish adverse use because the plaintiff's understanding was that the line was to remain on the premises just so long as the property owners consented thereto, and no longer.). Permission may be inferred from the neighborly relation of the parties, or from other circumstances. 4 Powell on Real Estate, § 34.10[2][a]. [24] A use that began as permissive will not become adverse unless the license (created by the granting of permission) is repudiated. As we held in Syllabus Point 2 of Faulkner v. Thorn, 122 W.Va. 323, 9 S.E.2d 140 (1940) (footnote added): The use of a way over the land of another, permissive in its inception, will not create an easement by prescription no matter how long the use may be continued, unless the licensee, to the knowledge of the licensor, renounces the permission and claims the use as his own right, [25] and thereafter uses the way under his adverse claim openly, continuously and uninterruptedly, for the prescriptive period. In accord, Bruce and Ely, § 5:9 (When use of a servient estate is initially permissive, the use will confer a prescriptive right only if the user subsequently makes a direct assertion of a claim hostile to the owner.); Town of Paden City v. Felton, 136 W.Va. at 137-38, 66 S.E.2d at 287 (An easement over land will not arise by prescription simply from permission of the owner of the servient estate, no matter how long the permissive use may continue; and when a use by permission has begun, in the absence of some decisive act by the claimant of the easement, which indicates an adverse and hostile claim, the use will continue to be regarded as permissive, and this is especially so when the use of the land is in common with its use by others.). The Restatement goes one step further, and suggests that even if the property owner has not given explicit permission, any use made in subordination to the property owner is not adverse. Subordination means that the user is acting with authorization, express or implied, from the landowner, or acting under a right that is derivative from the landowner's title. The reason that a use made in subordination to the property owner is not adverse ... is that the property owner is not put on notice of the need to take steps to protect against the establishment of prescriptive rights. To express the idea that an adverse use cannot be in subordination to the rights of the owner, it is frequently said that the use must be made under claim of right. This does not mean that the user must claim entitlement to a servitude or show color of title, as sometimes mistakenly asserted, but merely that the user must not act in such a way as to lead the owner to believe that no adverse claim is asserted. Use under claim of right may also mean that the user acts as the owner of a servitude would act, as opposed to the way a casual trespasser would act. Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes), § 2.16, cmt. f. Uses made in subordination to the property owner include uses by someone closely related by blood, [26] a co-tenant, a licensee, or holder of some other type of easement or servitude. Because these uses are essentially authorized by the property owner, the use is not adverse. We hold that in the context of prescriptive easements, an adverse use of land is a wrongful use, made without the express or implied permission of the owner of the land. An adverse use is one that creates a cause of action by the owner against the person claiming the prescriptive easement; no prescriptive easement may be created unless the person claiming the easement proves that the owner could have prevented the wrongful use by resorting to the law. A use of another's land that began as permissive will not become adverse unless the license (created by the granting of permission) is repudiated. We now turn to the incongruity with our prior case law, namely that our cases allow a finder of fact to conclusively presume that a use was adverse if the other elements of the prescriptive easement doctrine are established. See footnote 17, supra. Easements by prescription are not favored in the law, because they essentially reward a trespasser and allow the taking of another's property without compensation. In this modern age, it does little to encourage civility between neighbors to have a rule whereby a landowner, who allows his neighbor to use some part of his land, runs the risk that the use may transmogrify into a legally-binding prescriptive use merely by the passage of time. Such a rule, as this case demonstrates, encourages expensive litigation between neighbors to either obtain some legal injunction to stop the use of the land, or obtain a legal ruling definitively establishing an easement. Worse, such a rule might impel neighbors to resort to aggressive, extra-legal acts in defense of their property. [27] We therefore hold that the burden of proving adverse use is upon the party who is claiming a prescriptive easement against the interests of the true owner of the land. To the extent our prior cases suggest that proof of adverse use is not required, or that the continuous and uninterrupted use of another's land for ten years is presumed to be adverse, they are hereby overruled. [28] The landowner has no burden of proof. It is the person claiming the prescriptive easement who must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the use of the land was adverse to the true owner of the land. (4) Continuous and Uninterrupted Defined The second element of the prescriptive easement doctrine requires that the person claiming a prescriptive easement show that the adverse use of the servient estate was continuous and uninterrupted for at least ten years. The ten-year period is the statute of limitation for property disputes. See W.Va.Code, 55-2-1, supra. We have consistently defined the terms continuous and uninterrupted, but only in the context of adverse possession. The term continuous means that an adverse possession has not been abandoned by the claimant during the ten-year period; uninterrupted means that no other party, unrelated to the party claiming adverse possession, has broken the chain of possession. For instance, in part of Syllabus Point 6 of State v. Davis, 140 W.Va. 153, 83 S.E.2d 114 (1954), we said: In the law of adverse possession, continuous possession means possession which has not been abandoned by him who claims such possession and uninterrupted possession means possession which has not been effectually broken by the possession of another person. [29] In the context of prescriptive easements, [f]or a use to be continuous, it is critical that there be no break in the attitude of mind of the claimant or the claimant's predecessor which would amount to a recognition of subordination to the servient owner's consent or an abandonment of the use in response to the servient owner's demand. Wehde v. Regional Transp. Authority, 237 Ill.App.3d 664, 680-81, 178 Ill.Dec. 190, 604 N.E.2d 446, 458 (1992). A claimant's use of another's land need not be regular, constant, or daily in order to be continuous. [T]he evidence need not show a constant use in order to establish continuity; rather, continuity is established if the evidence shows a settled course of conduct indicating an attitude of mind on the part of the user or users that the use is the exercise of a property right. Keefer v. Jones, 467 Pa. 544, 548, 359 A.2d 735, 737 (1976). All that is necessary is that the use be as often as required by the nature of the use and the needs of the claimant. Richards v. Pines Ranch, Inc., 559 P.2d 948, 949 (Utah 1977). The existence of gaps in time between the claimant's use of another's land will not necessarily destroy the continuity of use. Easements that are seasonal or periodical may be acquired by prescription. For example, one may obtain a prescriptive easement by driving cattle to and from a summer range, by using a beach or a driveway only during the summer, by traveling a roadway in the haying season, or by making seasonal use of a path. Likewise, intermittent but recurring use of a rural roadway for hauling wood and other purposes constitutes the required continuity. Further, in an unusual case, ... a country club acquired a prescriptive easement to use adjacent land as a rough when several poorly hit golf balls landed on the servient estate each day. In an equally unusual circumstance, the continuity requirement was satisfied by the existence and infrequent use of a fire escape between two buildings. It has also been held that infrequent use of a roadway to visit lots purchased for eventual retirement living was continuous. Moreover, in assessing the continuity requirement courts will consider use by visitors, service providers, and family members attributable to the claimant. Bruce & Ely, The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land, § 5:15 (footnotes omitted). However, to establish a prescriptive easement, the continuity element requires more than occasional or sporadic use of the right of way. Newman v. Michel, 224 W.Va. 735, 744, 688 S.E.2d 610, 619 (2009). [30] [O]ccasional acts of trespass do not satisfy the requirement of continuity. Bruce & Ely, supra, § 5:15. Intermittent use may be continuous for purposes of establishing a prescriptive easement if it is consistent with the normal use that an owner of the property would make and is sufficiently open and notorious to give notice to the owner of the servient estate that the user is asserting an easement. Great Northern Paper Co., Inc. v. Eldredge, 686 A.2d 1075, 1077 (Me.1996). The establishment of a prescriptive easement also requires that the claimant's adverse use of another's property must be uninterrupted for ten years. A use can only be interrupted by the landowner asserting ownership before the prescriptive period has expired. Bruce & Ely, supra, § 5:15. Actions by a third person do not interrupt an adverse usage because they do not represent an assertion of dominion by the owner. [31] Moreover, brief interruptions caused by natural forces or construction projects do not negate continuity of usage. Id. (Footnote added). A claimant's adverse use may be interrupted by the owner of the servient estate physically blocking the way during the prescriptive period, [32] or by the owner instituting successful legal proceedings. Numerous courts have held when the potential servient owner, by either threats or physical barriers, succeeds in causing a discontinuance of the use, no matter how brief, the running of the prescriptive period is stopped. Pittman v. Lowther, 363 S.C. 47, 50, 610 S.E.2d 479, 480 (2005). [A] barrier established for the purpose of, and in fact, interrupting an adverse claimant's use is effective even if it is ultimately removed by the adverse claimant. Trask v. Nozisko, 134 P.3d 544, 553 (Colo.App.2006). However, mere unheeded requests, protests, objections, or threats of prosecution or litigation by a landowner that the claimant stop are insufficient to interrupt an adverse usage. These actions must result in the interruption of the use, no matter how brief. Indeed, complaints may strengthen the conclusion that the claimant's use was hostile. Bruce & Ely, supra, 5:16. We therefore conclude that for an adverse use to be continuous, the person claiming a prescriptive easement must show that there was no abandonment of the adverse use during the ten-year prescriptive period, or recognition by the person that he or she was using the land with the owner's permission. Additionally, the adverse use need not have been regular, constant or daily to be continuous, but it must have been more than occasional or sporadic. All that is necessary is that the person prove that the land was used as often as required by the nature of the easement sought, and with enough regularity to give the owner notice that the person was a wrongdoer asserting an easement. Furthermore, we hold that for an adverse use to be uninterrupted, the person claiming a prescriptive easement must show that the owner of the land did not overtly assert ownership of the land during the ten-year prescriptive period. Mere unheeded requests, protests, objections, or threats of prosecution or litigation by the landowner that the person stop are insufficient to interrupt an adverse usage. If any act by the landowner succeeded in causing the person to discontinue the adverse use, no matter how brief the discontinuance, then the adverse use was interrupted. (5) Known or Notorious and Visible Adverse Use Defined To create a prescriptive easement, the claimant's adverse use must either be actually known to the rightful owner of the servient estate, or be open and notorious so that a reasonable owner would have been on notice of the adverse use. If a right of way is claimed by prescription, the claimant should allege and prove that over the prescriptive period, without interruption, he (or a predecessor in title) used the way with such open frequency as to notify its owner of the purpose to subject his land to the use. Syllabus Point 1, in part, Nutter v. Kerby, 120 W.Va. 532, 199 S.E. 455 (1938). See also, Syllabus Point 5, Core v. Faupel, 24 W.Va. 238 (1884) (Adverse possession in any case, in order to effect an ouster of the owner, must in its nature possess such notoriety, that the owner may be presumed to have notice of it and of its extent. It must be open, visible and exclusive.). Of course, where the landowner has actual knowledge of the adverse claim, the use need not be open and notorious. Bruce & Ely, supra, § 5:13. See, e.g., Conley v. Conley, 168 W.Va. 500, 502, 285 S.E.2d 140, 142 (1981) ( per curiam ) (claimant had established a prescriptive easement to use a gas line across the servient estate because the use of the line was obvious to all parties involved).  Black's Law Dictionary defines 'actual knowledge' as `direct and clear knowledge, as distinguished from constructive knowledge,' Black's Law Dictionary at 888 (8th Ed.2004)[.] Mace v. Ford Motor Co., 221 W.Va. 198, 204, 653 S.E.2d 660, 666 (2007). The open and notorious element is designed to insure that the owner of the real property which is being encroached upon has actual or constructive notice of the adverse use and to provide sufficient time to take necessary action to prevent that adverse use from ripening into a prescriptive easement. Zimmer v. Dykstra, 39 Cal.App.3d 422, 431, 114 Cal.Rptr. 380, 386 (1974). In other words, the usage must be of such a nature as to charge the landowner with constructive notice. Bruce & Ely, supra, § 5:13. The Restatement offers the following reasoning: The purpose of the requirement that the use be open or notorious is to give the owner of the servient estate ample opportunity to protect against the establishment of prescriptive rights. To satisfy this requirement, the adverse use must be made in such a way that a reasonably diligent owner would learn of its existence, nature, and extent. Open generally means that the use is not made in secret or stealthily. It may also mean that it is visible or apparent. Notorious generally means that the use is actually known to the owner, or is widely known in the neighborhood. Although the terms are often stated conjunctively, the requirements are disjunctive. A use that is actually known to the owner of the servient estate satisfies the requirement even though it is not open. An openly visible and apparent use satisfies the requirement even if the neighbors have no actual knowledge of it. A use that is not open but is so widely known in the community that the owner should be aware of it also satisfies the requirement.... To meet the open-or-notorious requirement, a use must generally be substantial and reasonably definite so that the landowner should be aware that an adverse use is being made. Sporadic and casual uses are generally not open or notorious.... To be open a use must be made with sufficient frequency that the owner of the servient estate has a reasonable opportunity to become aware of it. Seasonal or intermittent use may be sufficient if consistent with the character or use of the dominant and servient estates or with the normal use that would be made of a servitude of the type claimed. Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes), § 2.17 We hold that the open and notorious or actually known requirement is designed to give the owner of the land ample opportunity to protect against another person's actions to establish a prescriptive easement. To establish that an adverse use was open and notorious, the person claiming a prescriptive easement must show that the wrongful use was visible and apparent, was not made stealthily or in secret, and was so conspicuous and obvious that a reasonable, prudent owner of land would have noticed. However, where the owner of the land had actual knowledge of the adverse use, the person claiming a prescriptive easement need not show that the use was open and notorious. (6) Identifying the line, width, starting and ending points, and use of the easement Our law is clear that [a] right of way acquired by prescription for one purpose cannot be broadened or diverted, and its character and extent are determined by the use made of it during the period of prescription. Syllabus Point 3, Monk v. Gillenwater, 141 W.Va. 27, 87 S.E.2d 537 (1955). When an easement has been acquired by prescription, the extent of the right so acquired is measured and determined by the extent of the user out of which it originated. Syllabus Point 4, Foreman v. Greenburg, 88 W.Va. 376, 106 S.E. 876 (1921). The precise location of an easement sought to be established should be described either by metes and bounds or in some other definite way. Syllabus Point 1, in part, Nutter v. Kerby, 120 W.Va. 532, 199 S.E. 455 (1938). [33] In other words, [t]he use of the land defines the parameters of the easement. Wheeling Stamping v. Warwood Land, 186 W.Va. 255, 258, 412 S.E.2d 253, 256 (1991). The scope of the right acquired by prescription will be commensurate with and measured by the use that originally gave rise to the easement. Shock v. Holt Lumber Co., 107 W.Va. 259, 262, 148 S.E. 73, 74 (1929). For example, in Crane v. Hayes, 187 W.Va. 198, 417 S.E.2d 117 (1992) ( per curiam ), a roadway was built across the defendants' land in the 1920s as a logging road. It was occasionally used by the plaintiffs (and their predecessors) for agricultural purposes after the 1930s, and to occasionally gather firewood or to check fences. In 1980, the plaintiffs began clearing and upgrading the road on the defendants' land, and used the road as an access to build two houses on their property. When the defendants realized the plaintiff intended to use the road across their land as an access for the new houses, the defendants blocked the road. We concluded that the plaintiffs had a prescriptive easement, but only for agricultural uses, gathering of firewood, and checking fences. The plaintiffs were not entitled to increase the burden on the land to encompass travel for residential purposes. 187 W.Va. at 201, 417 S.E.2d at 120. The manner in which a prescriptive easement may be used is defined by the manner in which the easement was used historically. [34] The character and purpose of the easement acquired by prescription are determined by the use made of it during the prescriptive period. Syllabus Point 3, Burns v. Goff, 164 W.Va. 301, 262 S.E.2d 772 (1980) ( per curiam ). The entire history of the claimant's usage of the way over which an easement is sought must be evaluated to determine the character and scope of the prescriptive easement. See Clain-Stefanelli v. Thompson, 199 W.Va. 590, 595, 486 S.E.2d 330, 335 (1997). We hold that a person claiming a prescriptive easement must prove the reasonably precise location of the starting and ending points of the land that was used adversely, the line that the use followed across the land, and the width of the land that was adversely used. Furthermore, the manner or purpose in which the person adversely used the land must be established. This is because a right of way acquired by a prescriptive easement cannot be broadened, diverted or moved; its purpose and location are determined solely by the adverse use made of the land during the ten-year prescriptive period. B.