AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• In 1996, Plaintiff and her then-husband purchased a tract of land (Tract B-1) and planned to build a house. The adjacent tract (Tract B-2) was purchased by another couple, the Duncans, for the same purpose. Both tracts lacked access to a nearby road, leading the two couples to agree on constructing a shared driveway, the costs of which they also shared. This driveway was realigned in 1999, with expenses again split between the parties. Despite intentions to formalize this agreement in writing, it was never documented nor was the easement recorded. In 2006, the Duncans sold Tract B-2 to Defendants, who, after some years of shared use, attempted to deny Plaintiff access to the driveway, leading to legal action by Plaintiff (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of San Miguel County, Matthew J. Sandoval, District Judge: After a non-jury trial, the court entered a judgment in favor of Plaintiff, granting her a prescriptive easement over the driveway (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the agreement with the Duncans to build and share the driveway in 1996 created an unrecorded easement that ripened into a prescriptive easement over what is now Defendants’ property (para 4).
• Defendants: Contended that the district court erred in granting Plaintiff a prescriptive easement, arguing that Plaintiff failed to show adverse use of the driveway necessary for a prescriptive easement (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether an unrecorded oral permissive easement can give rise to an easement by prescription after the prescriptive period (para 1).
• Whether the intended but imperfect easement created by Plaintiff's agreement with the Duncans gives rise to a prescriptive easement (para 4).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment granting Plaintiff a prescriptive easement over the driveway (para 14).

Reasons

• Per M. Monica Zamora, with Michael E. Vigil and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, the court held that prescriptive use may be either adverse use or use pursuant to the terms of an intended but imperfectly created easement. This interpretation aligns with the Restatement (Third) of Property, which the court looked to for guidance due to the absence of New Mexico cases addressing this specific issue. The court found that Plaintiff's use of the driveway was pursuant to an intended but imperfectly created easement, thus constituting prescriptive use. It was undisputed that the driveway was built and used openly by the parties from its inception, satisfying the requirements for a prescriptive easement. The court rejected Defendants' argument that the district court's findings were insufficient, noting the uncontroverted evidence of Plaintiff's open, notorious, and continuous use of the driveway for the ten-year prescriptive period (paras 5-13).