FACTS: Appellant property owner sought review of a decision which awarded respondent neighboring property owner a prescriptive easement and ordered that appellant relocate a building that interfered with respondent's use of the easement. The lower court affirmed the trial court's decision.
On appeal the court addressed whether respondent should be required to compensate appellant for the easement and the cost of relocating the structure.
The court answered no and held that respondent had acquired a valid prescriptive easement by using a portion of appellant's property for the time required by statute and that to have respondent compensate appellant for the easement would contradict the long-standing intent of the statutes that encouraged the use of land rather than nonuse.
The court also held that it would be within the discretion of a court of equity to order a party to compensate another for the relocation of a structure that encroached on an easement but not in this case because appellant willfully erected the structure with the knowledge that respondent had filed an action for a prescriptive easement.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the judgment which awarded respondent neighboring property owner a prescriptive easement over appellant property owner's land and ordered appellant to dismantle and relocate a structure that interfered with respondent's use of the prescriptive easement, because respondent had acquired a valid prescriptive easement and appellant's building, erected after litigation began, encroached on the easement.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?