Traders.Inc. v. Bartholomew

459 A.2d 974 (1983)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Prior to 1908, a Highway ran east and west, crossing the land now owned by D, and bordering the northern boundary of the 121-acre parcel now owned by P. The highway was discontinued some distance west of the 121-acre parcel. At the time of the discontinuance, the disputed 121-acre parcel were all commonly owned. In 1931, after having mortgaged the two northern parcels, the common owner lost them by a decree of foreclosure. By such action, the 121-acres were severed from the two northern parcels, thus land locking the 121-acre property. In 1943, the then owners of the 121-acre parcel erected a small dwelling house on their land and used the road until 1976 for ingress and egress, and for light agricultural purposes. In 1973, D built a gate at the westernmost point of the discontinued highway, thus blocking the way leading to P's 121-acre parcel. They did this with the apparent consent of the then owners, who continued to have access through the gate. P eventually acquired the 121-acre parcel with no right-of-way reserved in the deed. P has neither occupied the land for dwelling purposes nor driven motor vehicles over the discontinued road. P then commenced a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination in part to determine whether a way of necessity existed across D's land affording P access to its 121-acre parcel. The trial court found that P had a prescriptive easement along the former town highway, but that such easement was limited by past use to a strip of 'sufficient width to accommodate a driveway for a single dwelling with appurtenant agricultural uses.' P appealed contending that, for the purposes of determining the nature and scope of the easement, the relevant date was not 1943, when its predecessors commenced to use the roadway, but rather 1931, when the 121-acre parcel was severed by the foreclosure action and effectively landlocked. P claims this created a way of necessity twelve years prior to the actions giving rise to a prescriptive easement. P contends that the way of necessity is not limited by its prior use, but rather is coextensive with the full and reasonable present and future enjoyment of the dominant estate.