Fischer v. Voldemars Grinsbergs
198 Neb. 329, 252 N.W.2d 619 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a claimant has made open, visible, continuous, and unmolested use of an adjoining landowner's property for the prescriptive period, the use is presumed to be adverse and under a claim of right. The burden then shifts to the owner of the property to rebut this presumption by showing the use was merely permissive.
Facts:
- Viola M. Fischer and Valdemars and Parsala Grinsbergs own adjoining lots of land, described as Lot 25 and Lot 26, respectively.
- Prior to 1945, a cinder driveway existed along the property line between the two lots, serving both properties.
- In 1945, the predecessors-in-title to both Fischer and the Grinsbergs worked together to construct a concrete driveway in the same location, with each owner paying half the cost.
- From 1945 until 1972, the owners and tenants of both lots continuously and openly used the shared driveway to access their respective garages without controversy or interruption.
- No written agreement regarding the use of the driveway ever existed between any of the current or prior owners of the lots.
- In 1972, the Grinsbergs' attorney sent a letter to Fischer demanding she stop using the driveway, but no further action was taken and Fischer's use continued.
- In 1975, the Grinsbergs tore up the portion of the driveway on their property and erected a barrier on the property line, preventing Fischer from accessing her garage.
- The physical layout of Fischer's property makes it impossible for her to construct a driveway entirely on her own land to reach her garage.
Procedural Posture:
- Viola M. Fischer filed a petition against Valdemars and Parsala Grinsbergs in the District Court for Lancaster County, Nebraska (a court of first instance), seeking an injunction.
- The case proceeded to a trial on the merits.
- The District Court entered judgment in favor of the Grinsbergs, finding that Fischer's use of the driveway was permissive and that she had not established an easement.
- The District Court dismissed Fischer's petition.
- Fischer's motion for a new trial was overruled by the District Court.
- Fischer (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the open, visible, continuous, and unmolested use of a shared driveway by an adjoining landowner for over the statutory period, without any evidence of express permission, create a prescriptive easement by presuming the use was adverse and under a claim of right?
Opinions:
Majority - Brodkey, J.
Yes. The open, visible, continuous, and unmolested use of a shared driveway for the prescriptive period creates a presumption that the use was adverse and under a claim of right, thereby establishing a prescriptive easement. The court reasoned that all elements for a prescriptive easement were met, with the central dispute being whether the use was adverse or permissive. Under Nebraska law, when a claimant shows open, continuous, and unmolested use for the 10-year statutory period, the use is presumed to be adverse. This shifts the burden to the landowner (the Grinsbergs) to prove the use was permissive. The Grinsbergs failed to produce any evidence that they or their predecessors ever granted express permission for the use of the driveway. The court distinguished this case from those involving unenclosed, unimproved lands where use is presumed permissive, and aligned with the majority of jurisdictions holding that mutual construction and long-term use of a shared driveway is considered adverse by each party as to the other, leading to a prescriptive easement.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strength of the presumption of adversity in Nebraska prescriptive easement law, particularly in the context of shared driveways. It solidifies the principle that long-standing, mutual use of a shared driveway, especially one co-constructed by predecessors, is not considered merely a neighborly accommodation but rather an adverse use that can ripen into a legal right. The ruling places a significant evidentiary burden on landowners who wish to terminate such long-standing use, requiring them to affirmatively prove the use was initiated by express permission rather than by passive acquiescence. This aligns Nebraska with the majority view and provides clarity for future disputes over common boundary-line facilities.
Unlock the full brief for Fischer v. Voldemars Grinsbergs