The Plaintiff failed to prove that the access across the
abutting lot was continual for a period of twenty years. Even the evidence of
parking by customers and employees of the Plaintiff was insufficient to prove
that a prescriptive easement was created. The court concluded: “Here,
neighborly accommodation was consistent with the relationship between the
owners of the abutting properties. Such accommodation was reasonable given the
fact that the two properties were largely connected by pavement from at least
1974 or 1975 to 2010,
allowing customers to patronize more than one business without moving their
vehicles, and that employees of the two major commercial entities (the Pharmacy
and the Bank) frequented each other's businesses. The testimony of witnesses
proferred by both parties supports an inference that, to the extent the owners
of the Coyote Parcel knew or should have known of parking on their land by
Pharmacy customers or employees (who were not also frequenting a business on
the Coyote Parcel), it was mutually understood by the abutting landowners that
such parking was permissive and not adverse.”
PAUL F. ALPHEN, ESQUIRE
BALAS, ALPHEN & SANTOS, P.C.paul@lawbas.com
http://www.lawbas.com