A use that is shown to be open and continuous for a 10-year period is presumptively adverse. Defendants may rebut that presumption by showing that the use was permissive; Feldman et ux. v. Knapp et ux., 196 Or. 453, 471, 250 P.2d 92 (1952); Stone v. Henry Enterprises, Inc., 95 Or. App. 355, 358, 768 P.2d 442 (1989), or by showing that plaintiffs and their predecessors merely used an existing road in a way that did not interfere with defendants' use. Woods v. Hart, 254 Or. 434, 437, 458 P.2d 945 (1969); Stone v. Henry Enterprises, Inc., supra, 95 Or App at 358. To rebut the presumption of adverseness, there must be evidence that the use was permissive.

The parties do not dispute that plaintiffs' and their predecessors' use was open, notorious and continuous for the requisite period of time; therefore, the presumption arises that the use was adverse. Feldman v. Knapp, 196 Or. 453, 250 P.2d 92 (1952); Stone v. Henry Enterprises, Inc., 95 Or. App. 355, 768 P.2d 442 (1989). Defendant may rebut that presumption by showing that the use was permissive, or that plaintiffs and their predecessors were using an existing road in ways that did not interfere with her and her predecessors' use. Woods v. Hart, 254 Or. 434, 458 P.2d 945 (1969); Feldman, 196 Or at 471; House v. Hager, 130 Or. App. 646, 883 P.2d 261, rev den 320 Or. 492 (1994).