Plettner v. Sullivan
335 N.W.2d 534, 214 Neb. 636, 1983 Neb. LEXIS 1156 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim for adverse possession requires possession that is exclusive of all others, including the true owner, while a claim for a prescriptive easement only requires that the claimant's use is not dependent on a similar right in the public at large and does not require exclusion of the true owner.
Facts:
- In 1962, the Plettners purchased a parcel of land from Lehar Valley Farms (the Hatchery).
- From 1962 until 1978, the Plettners and the Hatchery jointly used a road that provided access to the Plettners' property and was located on the Hatchery's land.
- During this period, the Plettners acted as if they owned the land up to a line near chickenhouses on the Hatchery's property, planting a row of trees in 1963, improving the road with rock in 1972, and building cabins accessible only by the road.
- The Plettners demonstrated dominion over the land west of the road, but their use of the road itself was shared with the Hatchery.
- On July 28, 1979, the Sullivans purchased the Hatchery's property.
- A survey obtained by the Sullivans revealed that the true boundary line was further west than the Plettners believed, placing the road entirely on the Sullivans' property.
- On August 8, 1979, the Sullivans erected a fence on the road, blocking the Plettners' access to their property.
Procedural Posture:
- The Plettners filed a quiet title action against the Sullivans in the District Court for Douglas County, the trial court of first instance.
- The trial court held that the Plettners had acquired title to the disputed land, including part of the road, by adverse possession.
- The trial court also created 'reciprocal easements' for both parties over the road.
- The Sullivans, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decree 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 a claimant's joint use of a road with the title owner for the statutory period defeat a claim for adverse possession due to a lack of exclusivity, but still satisfy the exclusivity requirement for a prescriptive easement?
Opinions:
Majority - Shanahan, J.
No as to adverse possession of the road; Yes as to the prescriptive easement. A claimant cannot acquire title to property through adverse possession if they shared the use of that property with the true owner, as this joint use negates the required element of exclusive possession. However, a claimant can acquire a prescriptive easement over the same property because the exclusivity required for an easement only demands that the user's right is independent of the general public, not that the true owner must also be excluded. The court found that the Plettners' shared use of the road with the Hatchery was not exclusive enough to grant them title via adverse possession. In contrast, their use was open, continuous, and adverse for over 10 years, and it excluded the public at large, which is sufficient to establish a prescriptive easement, giving them the right to continue using the road for access.
Analysis:
This decision provides a crucial clarification on the element of 'exclusivity' in property law, distinguishing its application in adverse possession versus prescriptive easements. It establishes that while sharing property with the true owner is fatal to an adverse possession claim for title, it does not defeat a claim for a prescriptive right of use. This precedent is highly significant in disputes involving shared driveways, paths, or roads, as it allows courts to grant a right of continued use where an outright transfer of ownership would be inappropriate due to the lack of complete, exclusive possession. It solidifies the principle that adverse possession is about acquiring ownership through hostile dominion, while a prescriptive easement is about acquiring a right of use through long-standing, open, and continuous action.
