Albany & Eastern Railroad Co. v. Martell

In determining the circumstances in which one’s use of another’s property gives rise to a prescriptive easement, any subjective misunderstanding does not affect the "presumption of adversity" in regards to the private or public nature of the property, which should be determined by the “objectively observable acts of the user and rightful owner.”

Albany & Eastern Railroad Company (AERC) discovered local residents using its crossing without deeded access because they believed they had a prescriptive easement over the crossing on the grounds that they and their predecessors openly, notoriously, and adversely used the crossing for a minimum of 10 continuous years. AERC sought to quiet title and the trial court held that the “presumption of adversity” applied and that the residents establish a prescriptive easement. On appeal, AERC argued that its predecessor mistakenly believed the crossing was ‘public,’ and that the "presumption of adversity" could not be invoked. In determining prescriptive easement, any subjective misunderstanding does not affect the "presumption of adversity" in regards to the private or public nature of the property, which should be determined by the “objectively observable acts of the user and rightful owner.”  The Court found that the residents used the crossing for decades openly, notoriously, and continually, in front of the rightful owner. Subjective misunderstandings regarding the nature of the property does not affect the presumption of adversity. The Court concluded that AERC’s predecessor slept on its rights and that its mistake does not preclude the presumption of adversity. The Court found that each of the residents established a prescriptive easement. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.