James Thomas Martin v. Noel L. Bicknell
99 A.3d 705
D.C.2014Background
- Martins and Bicknells own adjacent townhomes; a 12-foot common driveway straddles the lot line and provides garage access to each property.
- Martins purchased in 1969 and for decades drove across the centerline into the neighbor’s side to reach their garage; reciprocal crossing by neighbors was customary.
- In 2001 the predecessor converted the neighbor garage to a rental; Bicknells bought the property that year and began parking in their half of the driveway, culminating in a 2012 incident where their vehicle blocked Martins’ access.
- Martins sued claiming (1) an implied grant of an easement created at the original subdivision severance and (2) a prescriptive easement based on long, open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use for the statutory period.
- Trial court granted defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion, holding (a) implied grants require "strict necessity," and (b) prescriptive easement failed for lack of alleged adversity and exclusivity. Appellate court reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for implied grant of easement | Martins: implied grant requires only that easement be "reasonably necessary" to use/enjoy property | Bicknells: implied grant requires "strict necessity" (same as implied reservation) | Court: implied grants require only "reasonable necessity," trial court erred applying "strict necessity" |
| Sufficiency of Martins' allegations for reasonable necessity | Martins: complaint alleges common driveway design, 12-ft width vs. 7-ft garages, historical reciprocal use—supports reasonable necessity | Bicknells: Martins did not plead necessity; alternatives (remove hedge, alter patio) render use merely aesthetic | Court: allegations plausibly state reasonable necessity; dismissal on this ground improper |
| Elements needed for prescriptive easement: adversity | Martins: longstanding use was under claim of right, not permissive; supports adversity | Bicknells: prior cooperative behavior showed permission, so use was permissive; post-2001 period too short | Court: alleged statements reflect claim of right (not mere permission); adversity sufficiently pleaded at pleading stage |
| Need for exclusivity in prescriptive easement | Martins: exclusivity not required for prescriptive easement | Bicknells: exclusivity required (analogous to adverse possession) | Court: exclusivity is not required for prescriptive easement; overlapping/shared use does not defeat claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Hefazi v. Stiglitz, 862 A.2d 901 (D.C. 2004) (discusses implied grants vs. implied reservations and elements of prescriptive easement)
- Douglass v. Lehman, 66 F.2d 790 (D.C. Cir. 1933) (addresses "strict necessity" language in context of implied reservations)
- Wood v. Neuman, 979 A.2d 64 (D.C. 2009) (upheld dismissal where plaintiff failed to show reasonable necessity for implied easement)
- Potomac Dev. Corp. v. District of Columbia, 28 A.3d 531 (D.C. 2011) (pleading standard guidance adopting federal plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard applied)
- Kreuzer v. George Washington Univ., 896 A.2d 238 (D.C. 2006) (explains servient owner may use property so long as it does not unreasonably interfere with servitude)
- M.A.P. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310 (D.C. 1971) (controlling precedent on review and use of older decisions)