Cynthia Caluori v. Dexter Credit Union, 79 A.3d 823

Caluori bought Lot 18 in 1981, excluding the disputed driveway area which became part of Lot 19; Lot 19 housed a bank since 1971 and provided access to Lot 18 via the disputed driveway.
Dexter purchased Lot 19 in 2010 and planned to relocate the driveway and plant landscaping to block its entrance.
Caluori filed suit seeking a prescriptive easement and an easement by implication over the driveway; Dexter counterclaimed for trespass/quiet title.
Superior Court bench trial (3 days) in March 2012 denied prescriptive/easement by implication; final judgment entered April 13, 2012.
Rhode Island Supreme Court granted discretionary review and, after consideration, vacated the prescriptive-easement ruling in part, affirmed the easement-by-imPLICATION ruling, and remanded for further findings on prescriptive easement.
The court noted issues regarding whether Caluori’s use was hostile and open/notorious, and whether a 1992 Notice of Intent to Dispute could properly influence the decision absent evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prescriptive easement: hostile use and claim of right	Caluori contends hostility/claim of right were not established	Dexter argues lack of clear and convincing evidence of hostility/claim of right	Notorious use established; hostility to be determined on remand
Prescriptive easement: reliance on undocumented notice	Notice of Intent to Dispute should be considered in evidence	Notice not in evidence and not controlling	Error to rely on unauthenticated notice; still remand for complete fact-finding
Prescriptive easement: whether use was open and notorious	Caluori used property openly for access for >10 years	Use was not notorious	Notorious use established; open use deemed not only open but notorious
Easement by implication	Implied easement should exist due to prior use	No reasonably necessary easement at severance	Affirmed denial of easement by implication; standard properly applied

Cahill v. Morrow, 11 A.3d 82 (R.I. 2011) (relevance of superior-title acknowledgments during the statutory period)
Butterfly Realty v. James Romanella & Sons, Inc., 45 A.3d 584 (R.I. 2012) (open/notorious use may be inferred from ongoing access)
Tavares v. Beck, 814 A.2d 346 (R.I. 2003) (hostility/claim of right defined as adverse use to owner)
Carnevale v. Dupee, 853 A.2d 1197 (R.I. 2004) (objective test for notoriety to attract constructive notice)
Vaillancourt v. Motta, 986 A.2d 985 (R.I. 2009) (test for easement by implication at time of severance)