"Adverse possession of real property ripens into title in the adverse possessor or disseizor where it continues for the period allowed for the recovery of real estate, which is 15 years." Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 177, 14 N.W.2d 482, 485 (1944); see Minn. Stat. § 541.02 (2010) (establishing limitations period). "The possession of successive occupants, if there is privity between them, may be tacked to make adverse possession for the requisite period."
A prescriptive easement is based on prior continuous use and grants a right to use the property of another. Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 181, 14 N.W.2d 482, 486-87 (1944). As such, a prescriptive easement is a "servitude imposed upon corporeal property."
Our supreme court has held that periodically passing onto adjoining urban property to maintain a house on one's own property is not sufficiently hostile and continuous to establish a prescriptive easement. Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 181-83, 14 N.W.2d 482, 486-87 (1944). In Romans, respondent Romans periodically, and without permission, placed his ladder on the neighbor's lawn to paint his house and repair and maintain his windows.
We agree. The use of the Stanard property by the Urbans before that is best classified as occasional and sporadic, failing to satisfy the elements of adverse possession.SeeRomans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 178, 14 N.W.2d 482, 485 (1944). This decision is not meant to state that, as a matter of law, adverse possession cannot start until one puts up a building or other permanent or semi-permanent structure.
With both, a person, through his prolonged actions, gains an interest in property that he did not previously have. Through adverse possession, a person gains title to land. See Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 177, 14 N.W.2d 482, 485 (1944). Through a prescriptive easement, a person gains the right to use land for certain purposes.
A prescriptive easement is based on prior continuous use and grants a right to use the property of another. See Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 181, 14 N.W.2d 482, 486-87 (1944). As such, a prescriptive easement is a "servitude imposed upon corporeal property."
The claimant's use must be sufficient to make it known that the use is adverse. Romans v. Nadler, 14 N.W.2d 482, 485 (Minn. 1944). A prescriptive easement cannot be established based on "occasional and sporadic acts for temporary purposes."
A prescriptive easement is based on prior continuous use and grants a right to use the property of another. See Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 181, 14 N.W.2d 482, 486-87 (1944). As such, a prescriptive easement is a "servitude imposed upon corporeal property."
As one case put it, the disseizor must not only possess the property, he or she must make that fact known by keeping their "flag flying." Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 178, 14 N.W.2d 482, 485 (1944). Appellants argue that respondents' possession of portions of the disputed property was not actual and open and therefore did not put them on notice that respondents claimed the property adversely.
The Owenses argue that the Randalls' and the Kellys' use of the property was a neighborly forbearance on the part of the Owenses. The Owenses rely on Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 180-81, 14 N.W.2d 482, 486 (1944), which holds that the reviewing court should use common sense in determining whether a specific use is hostile. In Romans, the court noted that simple neighborly forbearances of the use of property would not make such a use hostile because then every adjoining landowner would gain adverse rights.