Turner v. Bouchard
32 A.3d 527
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Bouchard owns Lot 16 and holds an express easement over Lot 17 for ingress/egress to his property.
- Disputed area lies on Lot 17 beyond the express easement and was used by Bouchard for driveway, boat storage, and beach access.
- Turner’s parents previously owned Lot 17 and Lot 18; the express easement was incorporated into deeds in 1980 and 1984.
- The circuit court found Bouchard has a prescriptive easement over the disputed area and set maintenance/responsibility boundaries.
- Turner appealed, contending the use was permissive or not proven as adverse; the issue involved enlargement of an easement by prescription.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Bouchard established an adverse, exclusive, and continuous prescriptive easement for the statutory period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden and adverse-use standard for prescriptive easement | Turner argues Bouchard’s use was permissive due to express easement. | Bouchard’s use exceeded scope; presumption of adversity applies and burden shifts to Turner. | No error; burden properly placed on Turner to show permissive use; Bouchard proved adversity. |
| Woodlands exception applicability | Turner contends woodlands exception should apply, creating permissive use presumption. | Woodlands exception not satisfied; area not unenclosed wildlands. | Woodlands exception not applicable; prescriptive use proven without it. |
| Elements of prescriptive easement (adverse, exclusive, continuous) | Bouchard used area openly and continuously for twenty years within scope of easement. | Turner argues use was not adverse or exclusive because of express easement and neighborly conduct. | Bouchard satisfied adverse, exclusive, and continuous elements for the twenty-year period. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cox v. Forrest, 60 Md. 74 (1883) (adverse use burden shifts after presumption of adversity when there is no permission)
- Feldstein v. Segall, 198 Md. 285 (1951) (expands on burden to show change to adverse use; permissive origin matters)
- Mavromoustakos v. Padussis, 112 Md.App. 59 (1996) (rejects heightened neighborly-burden concept; permits permissive-use evidence not enough to rebut presumption)
- Forrester v. Kiler, 98 Md.App. 481 (1993) (woodlands exception described and applied where appropriate)
- Leekley v. Dewing, 217 Md. 54 (1958) (prescriptive analysis depends on strength of proof in each case)
- Banks v. Pusey, 393 Md. 688 (2006) (de novo review for legal questions; burden and standard discussions)
- Dalton Real Estate Inv. Co., 201 Md. 34 (1952) (presumption of adversity when use is open and unexplained for twenty years)
- Shuggars v. Brake, 248 Md. 38 (1966) (exclusive-use requirement in prescriptive easements)