Robert Jesurum v. WBTSCC Limited Partnership & a., 151 A.3d 949

Plaintiff Robert Jesurum and the public used a gravel area called "Sanders Point" (adjacent to Little Harbor Beach in Rye) for parking and beach access from at least the 1950s through 2012.
Defendants WBTSCC LP and trustee William H. Binnie own the adjoining golf course; increased public use led to tensions and defendants blocked off Sanders Point in October 2012.
Jesurum sued for a declaratory judgment that he and the public had acquired a prescriptive easement for parking and beach access; the trial court granted summary judgment on easement existence and later held a hearing on scope.
Trial court ruled the public holds a prescriptive easement limited to four short-term parking spaces (dawn to dusk) and pedestrian access to the beach (excluding carting/towing vessels).
The trial court awarded attorney’s fees to Jesurum under the substantial-benefit theory; the trial court’s fee award was challenged on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a public prescriptive easement exists over Sanders Point	Jesurum: long, continuous, open public use (20+ years) put owners on notice; non-permissive	Defendants: use was incidental/minor or permissive; not adverse	Court: affirmed — public use was adverse, continuous, and sufficient to create a prescriptive easement
Scope of easement	Jesurum: parking and pedestrian access to beach (as historically used)	Defendants: scope should be limited to original activities (e.g., digging for worms); local ordinances/regulations should constrain scope	Court: affirmed — scope defined by character of use: parking and foot access (with specific limits)
Whether defendants interrupted continuity (construction/staging uses)	Jesurum: occasional staging did not interrupt continuous public use	Defendants: construction uses were acts that interrupted adverse use	Court: affirmed — intermittent staging was not unequivocal ouster; continuity satisfied
Award of attorney’s fees under substantial‑benefit theory	Jesurum: public benefited and plaintiff should recover fees	Defendants: trial court lacked jurisdiction after appeal; private defendants shouldn’t bear fees under public‑benefit theory	Court: reversed — awarding fees against private litigant under substantial‑benefit doctrine was unwarranted; trial court erred

Greenan v. Lobban, 143 N.H. 18 (1998) (elements for prescriptive easement: 20 years’ adverse, continuous, uninterrupted use giving notice)
Sandford v. Town of Wolfeboro, 143 N.H. 481 (1999) (scope of prescriptive easement defined by character and nature of use)
Ellison v. Fellows, 121 N.H. 978 (1981) (adverse use need not be hostile; trespassory use may suffice)
Bonardi v. Kazmirchuk, 146 N.H. 640 (2001) (burden‑shifting framework for proving adverse use)
Cote v. Eldeen, 119 N.H. 491 (1979) (easement scope tied to line of use creating it)
Claremont School Dist. v. Governor (Costs and Attorney’s Fees), 144 N.H. 590 (1999) (substantial‑benefit doctrine can justify fee awards where public also benefits)
Bedard v. Town of Alexandria, 159 N.H. 740 (2010) (limits on awarding fees against private litigants/governmental roles)
Silva v. Botsch, 121 N.H. 1041 (1981) (awarding fees when suit primarily benefits a larger constituency; factual context important)