McDonald v. Harris

Supreme Court of Alaska
978 P.2d 81 (1999)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A claimant can establish a prescriptive easement even if their use of the land was based on a mistaken belief of ownership, as the requirements of hostility and notoriety are judged by an objective standard of how the claimant acted and what a diligent owner should have known, not the subjective knowledge of the parties.

Facts:

David Truss owned a large parcel of land, from which he sold adjacent lots to Sylvia Harris and a predecessor of Denise McDonald.
In November 1982, the Harrises bought their lot from Truss.
In the spring of 1983, Donald Harris built a driveway to his homesite, believing it was entirely on his property, and erected a fence alongside it.
The Harrises continuously used and maintained the driveway year-round from 1983 onward, posting 'no trespassing' and 'private drive' signs.
In April 1986, Denise McDonald purchased the adjacent lot, relying on a rough sketch of the property boundaries and not commissioning a formal survey.
Neither the Harrises nor McDonald were aware that the driveway encroached on McDonald's property.
Approximately nine and a half years after her purchase, in late 1995, McDonald commissioned a survey that revealed the encroachment.
Upon discovering the encroachment, McDonald blocked the Harrises' access to the driveway.

Procedural Posture:

Sylvia Harris filed a lawsuit against Denise McDonald in the Alaska Superior Court (a trial court), seeking to establish a prescriptive easement over the encroaching driveway.
Following a bench trial, the superior court found in favor of Harris and granted the prescriptive easement.
Denise McDonald (appellant) appealed the superior court's decision to the Supreme Court of Alaska.

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 a claimant's use of another's land satisfy the hostility and notoriety requirements for a prescriptive easement when the use was based on the claimant's and the landowner's mutual, mistaken belief that the claimant owned the land in question?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Fabe

Yes. A claimant's mistaken belief of ownership does not defeat a claim for a prescriptive easement because the elements are assessed objectively. To acquire a prescriptive easement, a claimant must prove continuous, hostile, and notorious use for ten years. The court found Harris satisfied all three elements. First, Harris's use was continuous from 1983 until McDonald blocked access in 1995, exceeding the ten-year requirement; the fact that a third party occasionally used the driveway did not defeat continuity because Harris's use was primary and consistent. Second, the hostility requirement is met through an objective test of whether the user acted as an owner without the true owner's permission. Because both parties were mistaken about the boundary, McDonald could not have granted permission, and Harris acted as the true owner would, satisfying the hostility element. Third, notoriety does not require the record owner's actual knowledge of the encroachment, only that the use was open and visible enough that a 'duly alert owner' would have known. A landowner is responsible for knowing their own property boundaries, and McDonald's failure to obtain an accurate survey meant she failed this responsibility.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the application of an objective test for the hostility and notoriety elements of a prescriptive easement in cases of mutual mistake. By rejecting the argument that a claimant's good-faith belief of ownership negates hostility, the court aligns with the majority view that such a belief actually strengthens the claim, as it demonstrates the user was acting as a true owner. The ruling places a significant burden on landowners to be diligent in knowing their property boundaries through surveys, as an owner's ignorance of an encroachment will not serve as a defense against a prescriptive easement claim if the use was otherwise open and visible. This precedent simplifies easement claims by focusing on observable actions rather than the subjective states of mind of the parties involved.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: McDonald v. Harris (1999)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature