Re: Prescriptive Easements and Tacking

More | Report Post

It seems that Williams would have to either tack on to Jones
ownership or start the clock again with his purchase. Not
too favorable to Williams since Smith has put everyone on
notice to keep out.

Since the discovery sanctions effectively provide a judgment
for Smith, perhaps Williams' only course would be to appeal
the sanctions decision on the basis of Jones' appeal rights
subrogating to the new owner Williams. If successful,
Williams could then tack onto Jones' ownership period and
relitigate the issue of the existence of the easement.

Is Easement by Necessity an issue in this case?

An interesting case.

On 10/27/05, dts wrote:
> Seeking comments on the following real case:
>
> Jones buys property in 1995. Begins using road on adjoining
> property that belongs to absent property owner, Smith.
>
> In 2001, Smith finds out Jones is using his property; Smith
> blocks road.
> Jones orally claims prescriptive easement on road.
> Smith files quiet title lawsuit in 2001 against Jones.
>
> Jones defends and counter-sues Smith claiming prescriptive
> easement.
> Jones then sells to Williams. Williams does not intervene
> in the lawsuit at time of purchase.
> Jones then suffers discovery sanctions where court struck
> answer, entered his default and dismissed his counter-suit
> with prejudice.
>
> Williams intervenes after Jones suffers discovery sanctions.
> Williams claims he has prescriptive easement and has own
> right to litigate the easement. Williams tears down fence.
> Williams claims he does not have to tack onto Jones to meet
> statutory 5-year- period for prescriptive easement.
>
> Smith claims he has already litigated the issue of the
> easement. Smith claims Williams does not meet statutory
> requirements for easement; must tack onto Jones.
>
> Williams says he does not have to tack onto anyone. That he
> can rely on any of his predecessors’ use of the road and has
> own right to pursue the easement and claims there has been
> no final judgment in the case. Case set for trial in about
> six months.
>
> State case law provides that a terminating sanction is "on
> the merits" and res judicata.
>
> Comments?