Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Ps own real property located in the village of Good Hope. Ds own the real property immediately south of Ps' property, as well as the strip of land in question that runs along the eastern boundary of the Ps' property and extends to Ds' property. The strip is approximately 33 feet wide and 265 feet in length. The northern end connects to a public road. The strip provides both parties with ingress and egress to their respective properties. The strip is approximately 33 feet wide and 265 feet in length. The northern end connects to a public road. The strip provides both parties with ingress and egress to their respective properties. Ds installed a gravel driveway on the strip, and the Ps' predecessors in title shared the costs of installing it. In 2000, Ds paved the gravel driveway with blacktop. The women in each of the couples are first cousins, and at one time, Ps and Ds were good friends and good neighbors. In 2004, D agreed to build a new garage for Ps for $3,000 adjacent to the paved driveway on Ds' strip of land. In May 2005, with 80 to 90 percent of the garage completed, D quit work on the project. Ps hired someone else to complete the garage, and then paved the approach to the garage so that it connected to the driveway on the strip of land. A dispute arose regarding the location of their mailboxes. D threatened to 'fence in' Ps by erecting a fence along the paved driveway to deny them access to their new garage. Ps filed a complaint alleging they had obtained an easement over the driveway on the Ds' strip of land because Ps and their predecessors in title had used this portion of the Ds' property in an 'open, notorious and continuous' manner since, at least, 1963. The court found for Ps on their claim for an easement by estoppel. The trial court granted Ps an appurtenant easement by estoppel for purposes of ingress and egress. Ds appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co