59 A.3d 112
R.I.2013Background
- NICA owns beachfront land on the southern peninsula; RIMS owns lot 82 on the northern side.
- A sand trail provides the only land access to the peninsula but does not directly touch lot 82, requiring crossing a strip of NICA’s lot 81.
- Crandall family used lot 82 for decades, crossing over lot 81 via the sand trail, sometimes with vehicles depending on creek conditions.
- NICA sent a §34-7-6 notice to dispute RIMS’s claimed right to traverse over its land in 2000; RIMS sued under §34-7-7 to try the right.
- RIMS amended the complaint in 2010 to detail how the Crandall family satisfied elements of a prescriptive easement and asserted that §34-11-28 conveyed the easement with title to lot 82.
- Trial court found an easement by prescription, allowed vehicular and foot traffic, and held §34-7-9 did not bar the claim; judgment entered 2011 prompting appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §34-7-9 bars the prescriptive easement claim against conservation land. | RIMS’s claim pleaded in 2000 before the statute’s enactment; statute applies prospectively. | §34-7-9 bars any adverse-possession or prescription against conservation/open-space land, retroactivity not required. | Statute applies prospectively and did not bar RIMS’s 2000 claim; relation-back not needed. |
| Whether RIMS satisfied the elements of a prescriptive easement by clear and convincing evidence. | Crandalls’ long, actual, open, hostile use established the requisite elements. | Evidence shows ambiguous vehicular use and inconsistent periods; failed to prove ten-year continuous vehicle use. | Record insufficient to establish ten years of continuous vehicular use; need precise findings on use type and timing. |
| Whether the court should adopt a higher standard of proof for conservation/open-space land. | No heightened standard; Rhode Island precedent uses clear and convincing standard. | Should adopt higher standard due to conservation/open-space status. | No new standard; apply the existing clear-and-convincing standard. |
| Whether the trial court erred in defining the scope and location of the easement and in allowing annual relocation of the easement. | Easement location and width should be fixed and consistent with proven use. | Court may determine location; may adjust within reasonable bounds. | Remand required for concrete, consistent findings on location, width, and vehicular access. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cahill v. Morrow, 11 A.3d 82 (R.I. 2011) (clear and convincing standard for adverse-possession/easement)
- Direct Action for Rights & Equality v. Gannon, 819 A.2d 651 (R.I. 2003) (statutory amendments generally prospective)
- Reitsma v. Pascoag Reservoir & Dam, LLC, 774 A.2d 826 (R.I. 2001) (elements for prescriptive easement; distinguish vehicular vs foot use)
- Palisades Sales Corp. v. Walsh, 459 A.2d 933 (R.I. 1983) (foot traffic cannot establish prescription; focus on vehicular use)
- Burke-Tarr Co. v. Ferland Corp., 724 A.2d 1014 (R.I. 1999) (requirements for adverse possession/prescription)
- Anthony v. Searle, 681 A.2d 892 (R.I. 1996) (land possession standard for adverse possession)
- Daniels v. Blake, 99 A.2d 7 (R.I. 1953) (early articulation on prescription law)
- Gammons v. Caswell, 447 A.2d 361 (R.I. 1982) (predecessor authority on prescription)