Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialeasement
trialeasement

Related Cases

Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal.3d 251, 491 P.2d 374, 98 Cal.Rptr. 790, 3 ERC 1437, 2 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,049
View Case »
Herren v. Pettengill, 273 Ga. 122, 538 S.E.2d 735
View Case »
Vasquez v. Hawthorne, 145 Wash.2d 103, 33 P.3d 735
View Case »
Southern Ry. Co. v. Routh, 161 Ky. 196, 170 S.W. 520
View Case »
Jones v. United States, 168 A.3d 703
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Greenco, Inc. v. May, 506 N.E.2d 42

Facts

Nancy May owns the Monon Grill, which is adjacent to a parking lot owned by Greenco, Inc. Customers of the Monon Grill had been using the parking lot for many years, but there was no formal agreement or claim of right established by the previous owners of the Monon Grill. Testimonies revealed that the use of the parking lot was shared with the general public and that no previous owner had ever claimed exclusive rights to the parking area. The dispute arose when Greenco began constructing a fence to restrict parking, prompting May to seek a prescriptive easement.

Nancy May is the current owner of a restaurant known as the Monon Grill and the property on which it is situated. Howard Moore is the principal agent for Greenco, and situated on the Greenco property is a three-story brick commercial building and a parking lot. Nancy May's property and Greenco's property are contiguous; the parking lot is to the north of the Greenco building and shares a common boundary with the south end of Nancy May's property.

Issue

Did the trial court err in finding a prescriptive easement in favor of Nancy May?

Did the trial court err in finding a prescriptive easement.

Rule

To establish a prescriptive easement, the claimant must show actual, hostile, open, notorious, continuous, uninterrupted, and adverse use under a claim of right for a period of at least twenty years.

Requirements for acquiring an easement by adverse use is stated in IND.CODE 32–5–1–1, which reads: 'The right of way, air, light or other easement from, in, upon, or over, the land of another, shall not be acquired by adverse use, unless such use shall have been continued uninterruptedly for twenty (20) years.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented and found that the use of the parking lot by the Monon Grill's patrons was not exclusive or under a claim of right. The testimonies indicated that the parking lot was used by the general public and that previous owners of the Monon Grill had never asserted a claim to the parking lot. The court concluded that the owners in fee of the parking lot could not have acquired notice of an adverse claim, as the use was permissive rather than adverse.

In the case at bar, neither Nancy May nor the trial court stated exactly when a prescriptive easement started or when it attached. It was agreed that the Monon Grill was built in 1938, but there is no evidence as to who the original owner was and whether he asserted a prescriptive right.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the requirements for establishing a prescriptive easement were not met.

Judgment is reversed, and the trial court is directed to enter judgment for Greenco and Moore.

Who won?

Greenco, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court found that the use of the parking lot was permissive and did not constitute a prescriptive easement.

Greenco raises four issues for our review, but because of our resolution of this case, we only address the following issue: Did the trial court err in finding a prescriptive easement.

You must be