Paxson v. Glovitz

Facts

In 1979, the owners of two adjoining parcels of land orally agreed to create an easement along with a boundary line between the parcels. The easement, which was twenty feet wide, was intended to last for all time, and was used to construct a paved roadway. Although the easement was never recorded in any written document, the public used the roadway, and subsequent owners of the property believed that the public had a right to access the road. In 1995, Paxson (Plaintiff) acquired one parcel, and in 1998, Glovitz (Defendant) acquired the other. At the time of the purchases, both parties were told that the public had a right to use the road. In 2000, Defendant began to construct a fence along his property line over the driveway, and Plaintiff sued to obtain an easement by prescription for the portion of the driveway that lay on Defendant’s land. Defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that Plaintiff’s claim had no basis in law or fact, and alternatively that Plaintiff had expanded the scope of the easement. The trial court granted Defendant’ motion for summary judgment, and awarded him attorney’s fees, finding that Plaintiff’s suit had no basis in law or in fact. Plaintiff appealed.