247 N.C. App. 725
N.C. Ct. App.2016Background
- Coe Road (signed at Highway 64) crosses tracts owned by Defendants and provides the only vehicular access to two plaintiff-owned parcels (Myers: 18.5 acres; Coe: 4.1 acres).
- Plaintiffs and their predecessors used Coe Road for access and utilities for decades, maintaining it (scraping, trimming trees, adding gravel).
- Myers acquired his tract from Coe family relatives in 2001–2002; Coe’s family owned her tract since 1953. Both plaintiffs used the road prior to Defendants’ 2005 actions.
- In 2005 Defendants dug a large ditch across Coe Road on their property, blocking vehicular access to plaintiffs’ parcels.
- Plaintiffs sued in 2013 seeking a declaration of a non-exclusive perpetual prescriptive easement (ingress/egress/utilities) and injunctive relief; the trial court granted a 12-foot perpetual prescriptive easement and ordered the road restored. Defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs established a prescriptive easement across defendants' land | Plaintiffs (via their predecessors) used and maintained Coe Road openly, notoriously, continuously, adversely, and under claim of right for >20 years; tacking of predecessors' use supplies the 20-year period | Defendants contend plaintiffs lacked hostile/adverse use (use was permissive), so plaintiffs cannot satisfy the prescriptive elements or the 20-year requirement | Court held plaintiffs met all elements (hostile/claim of right, open/notorious, continuous ≥20 years, identity); affirmed grant of a 12-foot perpetual prescriptive easement and injunction to restore road |
Key Cases Cited
- Potts v. Burnette, 301 N.C. 663, 273 S.E.2d 285 (N.C. 1981) (evidence of sole access, long open use, maintenance by users, and no permission can rebut presumption of permissive use for prescriptive easement)
- Dickinson v. Pake, 284 N.C. 576, 201 S.E.2d 897 (N.C. 1974) (‘‘hostile’’ use defined as use manifesting claim of right; permissive use cannot ripen into prescriptive easement)
- Perry v. Williams, 84 N.C. App. 527, 353 S.E.2d 226 (N.C. Ct. App. 1987) (elements required to establish prescriptive easement and use by predecessors can be tacked)