O'Dell v. Stegall

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
703 S.E.2d 561 (2010)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To establish a prescriptive easement, a claimant must prove each of four elements by clear and convincing evidence: (1) adverse use of another's land, (2) continuous and uninterrupted use for at least ten years, (3) use that was actually known to the owner or so open and notorious that a reasonable owner would have noticed, and (4) a reasonably identified path and purpose of use. The continuous use of another's land for the prescriptive period no longer creates a presumption that the use was adverse; the claimant bears the full burden of proving adversity.

Facts:

In 2006, Michael J. O’Dell purchased a property that was formerly a church, which has its own driveway connecting to a public road, Route 15.
Robert and Virginia Stegall own a landlocked property located directly behind O’Dell's property.
A 25-foot-wide gravel lane runs along the northern edge of both properties, providing the Stegalls with their only access to Route 15.
For decades prior to 1999, the prior owner of O'Dell's lot, a church, allowed its congregants to use the gravel lane to access a parking lot at the rear of the building.
O’Dell began using the gravel lane to access a new horseshoe-shaped driveway he had on the northern side of his property.
In 2008, the Stegalls objected to O'Dell's use of the lane, called the police on two occasions alleging trespass, photographed O'Dell driving on the lane, and recorded a conversation with him about his use of it.

Procedural Posture:

Michael J. O’Dell sued Robert and Virginia Stegall and other neighbors in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County in September 2008.
The complaint sought to establish a prescriptive easement over a gravel lane and also claimed damages for interference with the alleged easement, outrage, invasion of privacy, and civil conspiracy.
O'Dell settled his claims against the other neighboring defendants, who were then dismissed from the case with prejudice.
A three-day jury trial was held in June 2009 on the claims against the Stegalls.
The jury found in favor of O'Dell, concluding he had a prescriptive easement and awarded him $5,300 in compensatory and $4,700 in punitive damages.
The circuit court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict and denied the Stegalls' post-trial motions for relief.
The Stegalls appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Under West Virginia law, does the continuous and uninterrupted use of another's land for ten years create a presumption that the use was adverse for the purpose of establishing a prescriptive easement?

Opinions:

Majority - Ketchum, Justice

No. The burden of proving adverse use is upon the party claiming a prescriptive easement, and prior cases suggesting that continuous use creates a presumption of adversity are hereby overruled. To establish a prescriptive easement, a claimant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the use was adverse, meaning it was a wrongful use made without the owner's express or implied permission. The court reasoned that prescriptive easements are disfavored because they reward a trespasser and work a forfeiture of the rights of the landowner. The old rule, which presumed adversity from long-term use, discouraged neighborly conduct and created a risk that permissive use could 'transmogrify' into a legal right. By placing the full burden on the claimant to prove adversity, the court sought to promote civility between neighbors and align the doctrine with modern societal ideals. In this case, O'Dell failed to prove who owned the gravel lane, and therefore could not prove his use was adverse to the owner's rights. Furthermore, the prior use by churchgoers was more likely a neighborly accommodation (permissive use) rather than an adverse one.

Analysis:

This decision represents a significant shift in West Virginia's property law concerning prescriptive easements. By explicitly overruling a long line of cases that presumed adversity from continuous use, the court has substantially raised the bar for claimants seeking to establish such easements. The ruling strongly favors landowners by requiring claimants to provide clear and convincing proof of a wrongful, non-permissive use, thereby protecting owners from losing property rights through neighborly accommodation. This change will make it much more difficult to succeed on prescriptive easement claims in West Virginia and will likely reduce litigation by clarifying that the burden of proof rests entirely on the party asserting the easement.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: O'Dell v. Stegall (2010)

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

Premium Feature