Prescriptive Easement and Changed Scope

Ana likely acquired a prescriptive easement by 2015. A prescriptive easement requires use that is open, notorious, adverse, continuous, and for the statutory period. Ana used a visible gravel driveway daily for passenger cars and occasionally for a small trailer. The use was open and notorious because Ben could observe it. It was continuous for ten years, from 2005 to 2015. It was adverse because Ben never gave permission before 2016; the setup expressly says he neither objected nor gave permission. Ana's subjective belief is not controlling, and the lack of permission supports adversity.

Ben's 2016 statement, 'You can keep using it as long as you need,' came after the ten-year period had already run. Once Ana's prescriptive easement vested, a later grant of permission could not retroactively defeat it. The statement might be relevant if the period had not run, because permission would defeat adversity during the permissive period. But here the easement was already established. Ana therefore has a prescriptive easement for the driveway as used during 2005–2015.

Carla takes Lot 2 subject to Ana's already-vested prescriptive easement. An easement is an interest in land that runs with the servient estate. Carla knew about the driveway when she bought, so she had at least inquiry notice. A purchaser cannot extinguish a vested easement simply by buying the servient parcel and installing a gate. Carla may use her property, but she cannot unreasonably interfere with Ana's easement.

Ana does not need tacking on these facts. Tacking would matter if Ana had not completed the prescriptive period before Ben sold to Carla. Then Ana might need to show privity between Ben and Carla and continuous use across the transfer. But Ana completed ten years in 2015, before the 2019 sale. The sale therefore did not interrupt the already-completed period. Carla's argument that Ana cannot tack Ben's knowledge misunderstands the timing: Ana is not relying on Carla's knowledge to complete the period; she is enforcing an easement that vested before Carla owned Lot 2.

The scope of a prescriptive easement is fixed by the use during the prescriptive period. Ana used the driveway daily for passenger cars and occasionally for a small utility trailer. That does not automatically limit her to passenger cars only; occasional trailer use that is consistent with the driveway's character can be part of the established scope. The court should ask whether the trailer use was open, continuous enough, and not a substantial change that increased the burden on Lot 2. A small utility trailer used occasionally is likely within the scope.

Ana cannot expand the easement to commercial trucks, heavy equipment, or a materially different use that would unreasonably burden Carla's parcel. Carla may maintain the driveway and may impose reasonable restrictions, such as a gate that Ana can open, but she cannot lock Ana out entirely. The court should define the easement by its historical use: daily passenger-vehicle access and occasional small-trailer access, with reasonable maintenance rights and no substantial expansion.