Opinion ID: 1946623
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Easement by Substitution

Text: The defendants further allege that the trial justice erred in failing to address their claim for an easement by substitution over the driveway. We have held that [w]hen the owner of a servient estate closes with a wall or other structure the original way and points out another way which is accepted by the owner of the dominant estate, the new way may become a way by substitution. Ondis v. City of Woonsocket, 934 A.2d 799, 803 (R.I.2007) (quoting Hurst v. Brayton, 43 R.I. 378, 381, 113 A. 4, 5 (1921)). Again, our review of the record reveals unaddressed issues that were raised in the pleadings and testified to at trial. Salvatore Scavello testified that Mr. James took us out there and he said this is where I'm going to give you the right of way, pointing to approximately the middle of his driveway, and said it's going to go north along the road 50 feet and to a certain wall.    He [said] we're going to put it so you've got part of my driveway because it would be rather difficult to move the wall. This testimony indicates that perhaps plaintiffs' predecessor granted defendants an easement by substitution. However, the trial justice failed to determine whether sufficient factual support existed to conclude that an easement by substitution was granted. Thus, because the trial justice failed to credit or reject this testimony, and failed to make any findings of fact or conclusions of law on this issue, this Court has no choice but to remand this case to the Superior Court for a new trial, to determine whether defendants acquired an easement by substitution over plaintiffs' property.