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

• The Fraternal Order of Police Albuquerque Lodge No. 1 (FOP) sought to establish a prescriptive easement for a driveway on neighboring properties owned by Alvarado Enterprises, Inc. (Defendant) and MIDEB, LLC. The FOP's property, acquired in 1960, initially had access via a dirt road from State Road 422. Over the years, the properties underwent various changes, including land exchanges and development, altering access routes. Despite these changes, the FOP continued to use the driveway for access. In 2007, the FOP filed a lawsuit seeking an express or, alternatively, a prescriptive easement for the driveway, eventually focusing solely on the prescriptive easement claim.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee (FOP): Argued that it had established the elements of a prescriptive easement for vehicular access on the driveway by clear and convincing evidence, based on continuous, open, notorious, and adverse use over a significant period.
• Defendant-Appellant (Alvarado Enterprises, Inc.): Contended that the FOP failed to prove adverse use of the driveway, did not establish continuous use for a ten-year prescriptive period, and argued that the district court failed to identify the specific years constituting the ten-year prescriptive period. Additionally, argued that a prescriptive easement was unnecessary due to alternative access routes available to the FOP.

Legal Issues

• Whether the FOP established the element of adversity required for the creation of a prescriptive easement.
• Whether the district court erred by failing to identify a specific ten-year time period within which all elements of a prescriptive easement were satisfied.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's ruling in favor of the FOP and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges Michael D. Bustamante and Cynthia A. Fry concurring, found that the district court erred in determining that the FOP established the element of adversity required for a prescriptive easement. The court highlighted issues with the district court's failure to specify the prescriptive period and questioned the determination of adverse use, particularly in light of the 1962 Highway Easement and subsequent developments, including the installation of a drop down curb. The appellate court concluded that the FOP's use of the driveway was initially permissive and that there was insufficient evidence to transform this use into an adverse one for the required ten-year period. The decision to remand was based on the need for clarity regarding when the drop down curb was installed and whether a ten-year gap of adverse use could be established following the extinguishment of the 1962 Highway Easement.