The Gravel Track Across Lot 6
In 2005 the Ardens bought rural Lot 7 and began using a gravel track across neighboring Lot 6 to reach a shed. The Flynns owned Lot 6, knew about the track, and never objected. The Ardens graded the track in 2008, laid gravel, and ran a fence line alongside it in 2011. In June 2016 the Flynns sent a letter: "We're happy to let you keep using the track as neighbors, but it's our land." The Ardens kept using it and never replied. In March 2025 the Flynns installed a locked gate across the track. The Ardens sue. The jurisdiction requires 10 years for prescription, 15 years for adverse possession, and assesses annual property taxes on Lot 6 to the Flynns, who paid them every year.
1. What interest do the Ardens have, if any, and as of what date? Address adverse possession versus prescription.
Read the worked answer
Adverse possession fails. The 15-year period was not satisfied before the 2016 letter, and more decisively, the Flynns paid the taxes every year. In jurisdictions imposing a tax-payment condition, a claimant who does not pay the taxes on the parcel cannot ripen title - regardless of how long the use continued.
Prescription succeeds. A prescriptive easement requires use that is actual, open and notorious, continuous, and hostile under a claim of right for the statutory period. The Ardens have each element:
- Actual and open: grading, gravel, and a fence line in plain view.
- Continuous: regular use from 2005 forward.
- Hostile: no permission was ever sought or given. Many courts presume hostility from open use; in a jurisdiction requiring proof, the absence of permission supports the inference.
- Ten years: complete in 2015.
Note what prescription does not require. Exclusivity is not an element of a prescriptive easement (unlike adverse possession), so the Flynns' shared use of the track is not fatal.
Bottom line: the Ardens hold an easement by prescription across Lot 6, vested in 2015.
2. The Flynns argue the June 2016 letter converted the use into permission and broke continuity. Evaluate that argument, and assess the effect of the 2025 gate.
Read the worked answer
The letter came too late. Permission defeats a prescriptive claim only if granted before the statutory period runs. The period completed in 2015; the letter is dated June 2016. Once a prescriptive easement vests, it is a property interest that cannot be retracted by the servient owner's unilateral statement - any more than a recorded easement could be extinguished by a letter.
The Flynns' better argument, if the dates were different, would be that the letter interrupted continuity. Courts treat permission, acquiescence, and physical obstruction as breaking the hostile and continuous elements. A letter sent in 2013 would have changed the outcome. The six-month gap between vesting and the letter is the whole case.
The 2025 gate. A servient owner may not unreasonably interfere with an easement. A locked gate across the only route to the shed is a substantial interference, not a mere reasonable regulation. The Ardens' remedy is an injunction requiring removal of the lock (or a key plus an access protocol) and damages for any lost use.
Watch for the counterclaim. The Flynns may argue the easement's scope is limited to the 2005 use - a footpath, not a graded gravel drive. Scope expands only with the servient owner's notice and consent, so the 2008 grading is worth briefing carefully.
3. The Ardens want to sell Lot 7 in 2025. What title and disclosure problems does the paralegal need to flag?
Read the worked answer
The easement will not appear in the record. A prescriptive easement is created by use, not by any recorded instrument, so nothing in the chain of title shows it. That creates two distinct problems, and they should not be conflated.
1. Benefit side - the Ardens' access. A buyer's title company will not insure an easement that no one can locate in the record. If the sale contract promises access to the shed, the Ardens cannot deliver insurable title without either: (a) a recorded easement agreement signed by the Flynns, or (b) a quiet-title judgment confirming the prescriptive easement. Option (a) is faster and cheaper; option (b) is necessary if the Flynns refuse.
2. Burden side - encumbrances on Lot 7. Check whether any neighbor holds a reciprocal claim against Lot 7. The Ardens' use of Lot 6 does not encumber Lot 7, but a buyer's title company may still raise exceptions for visible boundary and access conditions.
3. Disclosure. State seller-disclosure statutes typically require disclosure of known access disputes. The pending litigation with the Flynns is a disclosable item and a likely buyer's objection.
Sequence to recommend: negotiate the recorded easement before listing. Selling with an unrecorded prescriptive claim invites a renegotiation at the closing table.