851 S.E.2d 519
W. Va.2020Background:
- Petitioners (Carrs) own ~204-acre tract that does not abut a public road; Respondents own intervening land with a private road from Knobley Road to Petitioners’ property.
- Petitioners had two access routes: a poor-quality public access from Corridor H and a more direct private road crossing Respondents’ land.
- For decades Petitioners’ predecessors used Respondents’ road with neighborly relations; Respondents or predecessors provided keys, a remote gate opener, and allowed contractors to pass.
- Petitioners relied on instruments in their own chain of title (1989 and 2013 deeds) and a 1939 chancery partition (affecting only Petitioners’ predecessor tract) to claim an easement; no deed in Respondents’ chain granted such an easement.
- After a two-day bench trial the circuit court found no express or prescriptive easement, dissolved the temporary injunction, but (in an amended judgment) allowed Petitioners lifetime use; Petitioners appealed the denial of their motions for a new trial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of an express easement | Petitioners: deeds in Petitioners’ chain (1989, 2013) and historical partition support an express right-of-way across Respondents’ land | Respondents: no instrument in Respondents’ chain grants an easement; one cannot convey a greater right than one owns; parol evidence cannot create an easement | No express easement; deeds in Petitioners’ chain cannot bind Respondents and 1939 partition did not create rights over Respondents’ land |
| Existence of a prescriptive easement | Petitioners: long, continuous use and belief of right, known to Respondents | Respondents: use was permissive (neighborly conduct, keys/remotes, express permission for contractors); no repudiation of license | No prescriptive easement; use was permissive, so Petitioners failed to prove adverse use by clear and convincing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Public Citizen, Inc. v. First Nat’l Bank in Fairmont, 198 W.Va. 329, 480 S.E.2d 538 (1996) (standard of review for bench-trial findings and orders)
- O’Dell v. Stegall, 226 W. Va. 590, 703 S.E.2d 561 (2010) (elements and definition of prescriptive easement; adverse use requirements)
- Wellman v. Tomblin, 140 W. Va. 342, 84 S.E.2d 617 (1954) (parol evidence rule and principle that a grantor cannot convey greater title than owned)
- Beckley Nat. Exchange Bank v. Lilly, 116 W.Va. 608, 182 S.E. 767 (1935) (clear-and-convincing burden for prescriptive use)
- Cobb v. Daugherty, 225 W.Va. 435, 693 S.E.2d 800 (2010) (ways to create an easement: express grant, implication, or prescription)