The River Oak, GP v. IOAN Bucse, M2015-02208-COA-R3-CV

River Oaks (partnership) and Ray Morris own adjoining bays in a strip shopping center; Ioan and Felicia Bucse own the parcel immediately south (the Bucse property). A 16-foot deeded non-exclusive easement along the Bucse northern boundary was granted in 1978 for ingress/egress and utilities to the shopping-center owners.
Appellants sued after Appellees announced intent to fence the Bucse property, asserting prescriptive easement and easement-by-implication (and initially adverse possession) to continue using an "alley" behind the shopping center for parking, dumpsters, and deliveries.
At bench trial the parties disputed the precise strip of Bucse land claimed beyond the recorded 16-foot easement; testimony and photos often failed to distinguish use within the recorded easement from use on Bucse land outside it.
Trial court found title to the disputed area vested in Appellees subject to the 16-foot deeded easement and dismissed Appellants’ claims for prescriptive easement and easement by implication; temporary injunction was dissolved.
On appeal Appellants abandoned adverse-possession and the claim to an additional 12.5-foot strip; they challenged only (1) prescriptive easement and (2) easement by implication. The appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Appellants established a prescriptive easement over Bucse land beyond the recorded 16-ft easement	River Oaks/Morris argued they and predecessors used the alley (parking, dumpsters, deliveries) openly, continuously, and adversely for decades	Bucse argued uses largely occurred within the recorded 16-ft easement or with permission; Morris’s brief co-ownership of Bucse interrupted any adverse period	Held: No. Appellants failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that use was adverse and outside the recorded easement or continuous for the 20-year prescriptive period (Morris’s co-ownership interrupted the period)
Whether an easement by implication exists across Bucse land beyond the recorded 16-ft easement	River Oaks argued an implied easement was reasonably necessary for beneficial use of their property	Bucse pointed to existing access and the recorded 16-ft easement; argued no necessity for an extra implied easement	Held: No. Appellants failed to show the necessity element; access exists via front street and Candy Lane within the 16-ft easement, so an implied easement is not warranted

Cumulus Broadcasting, Inc. v. Shim, 226 S.W.3d 366 (Tenn. 2007) (elements and scope of prescriptive easement; extent of rights based on extent of use)
Bradley v. McLeod, 984 S.W.2d 929 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (requirements for prescriptive easement: adverse, open, continuous, exclusive, etc.)
Pevear v. Hunt, 924 S.W.2d 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (prescriptive-easement principles)
House v. Close, 346 S.W.2d 445 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1961) (authority on prescriptive-use requirements)
Furlough v. Spherion Atlantic Workforce, LLC, 397 S.W.3d 114 (Tenn. 2013) (definition of clear and convincing standard)
Stone v. Brickey, 70 S.W.3d 82 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (burden to prove prescriptive easement elements)
City of Whitwell v. White, 529 S.W.2d 228 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1974) (prescriptive use must be adverse, not permissive)
Cole v. Dych, 535 S.W.2d 315 (Tenn. 1976) (distinguishing types of easement; case involved dedication rather than easement by implication)
Cellco Partnership v. Shelby County, 172 S.W.3d 574 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (elements of easement by implication and necessity requirement)
Johnson v. Headrick, 237 S.W.2d 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1948) (classic formulation of elements for implied easement)
Newman v. Woodard, 288 S.W.3d 862 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008) (easement by implication proved by preponderance; contrast with prescriptive standard)