In re the Matter of the Application of Susan L. C. Mahoney to Register the Title to Certain Land.
A16-760
| Minn. Ct. App. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- The Kraemers own Lots 17–18; Mahoney owns Lot 19 (and part of 20). The Kraemers' driveway, paved in 1965 by predecessor LaCasse, encroaches onto Lot 19.
- LaCasse used, maintained, and paved the driveway beginning in 1965; use continued uninterrupted through subsequent owners; the Kraemers purchased in 2012 and knew of the encroachment.
- Mahoney purchased Lot 19 in 1985, knew of the encroachment by at least 1988, and claimed there was an agreement permitting the paving between prior owners.
- Mahoney sued to register boundaries; the Kraemers cross-applied to register boundaries and to establish a permanent easement.
- The parties stipulated that an easement exists but disputed its nature. The district court granted a nonexclusive easement yet imposed a relocation provision requiring removal/relocation of the driveway if substantially reconstructed, and found the prescriptive-easement claim failed.
- The Kraemers appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the evidence supports a prescriptive easement and that the relocation provision unlawfully narrowed its scope, and remanded boundary-registration matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Kraemer) | Defendant's Argument (Mahoney) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prescriptive easement exists for the encroaching driveway | Use was hostile, actual, open, continuous, exclusive for 15+ years → prescriptive easement | Use was permissive by agreement between prior owners; therefore not prescriptive | Court: Evidence meets elements for prescriptive easement; Mahoney failed to rebut hostility (her agreement testimony was inadmissible hearsay) → prescriptive easement established |
| Whether court may impose a relocation provision restricting reconstruction of the driveway | Scope of prescriptive easement measured by historical use; owner may continue and modify consistent with purpose; relocation restriction is improper | District court equity powers permit tailoring remedy and imposing relocation to protect servient estate | Court: Abuse of discretion to impose relocation provision because it contradicts historical unrestricted maintenance/use of the driveway |
| Whether the district court erred by not registering Kraemers' boundaries | Cross-application should be permitted to proceed after resolution of easement issues | Mahoney had pending boundary registration and court stayed determination until appeal resolution | Court: Remanded for further proceedings on boundary registration (Kraemers may file cross-application and court should address boundaries) |
Key Cases Cited
- Ebenhoh v. Hodzman, 642 N.W.2d 104 (Minn. App. 2002) (appellate review standard for district court factual findings in boundary cases)
- Rogers v. Moore, 603 N.W.2d 650 (Minn. 1999) (prescriptive-easement elements and policy)
- McCuen v. McCarvel, 263 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. 1978) (elements for prescriptive easement mirror adverse possession)
- Boldt v. Roth, 618 N.W.2d 393 (Minn. 2000) (presumption of hostility once actual, open, continuous, exclusive use proved; burden shifts to servient owner)
- Block v. Sexton, 577 N.W.2d 521 (Minn. App. 1998) (prescriptive-easement proof and scope analysis)
- Gabler v. Fedoruk, 756 N.W.2d 725 (Minn. App. 2008) (district courts have broad equitable discretion when crafting remedies)
- Wash. Wildlife Preservation, Inc. v. State, 329 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. 1983) (scope of an easement measured by the use giving rise to it)
- Alstad v. Boyer, 37 N.W.2d 372 (Minn. 1949) (historical use can establish hostility for prescriptive claims)