Holbrook v. Taylor

Facts

The dispute concerned a roadway 10 to 12 feet wide and about 250 feet long over the Holbrooks' unenclosed, hilly woodlands. The Holbrooks bought the land in 1942. In 1944 they gave permission for a haul road to be cut to move coal from a new mine. The road was used for that purpose until the mine closed in 1949, and the Holbrooks were paid a royalty. In 1957 they built a tenant house, and they and their tenant used the road. The house burned in 1961 and was not replaced. In 1964 the Taylors bought a three-acre building site next to the Holbrooks and built their home there the following year. Before 1965 all use of the road was by the Holbrooks' permission. While the Taylors were building, they were permitted to use the road for workmen, machinery and materials. The house cost $25,000. The Taylors kept using the road afterward. Mr. Holbrook testified that he gave them permission to use and repair it. They widened it, put in a culvert and graveled part of it with cinders, at a cost of approximately $100. No other location could reasonably serve as an outlet for the Taylors. No dispute arose until the fall of 1970. After a disagreement over a writing the Holbrooks wanted, they strung a steel cable across the road and put up "no-trespassing" signs.

Issues

1. Did the Taylors acquire a right to use the roadway by prescription, meaning long adverse use, when the use before 1965 was by the Holbrooks' permission?
2. Did the Taylors acquire an irrevocable right to use the roadway by estoppel, where they used it with the Holbrooks' consent or tacit approval and spent money building a house and improving the road?

Holding

The trial court was justified in finding no easement by prescription, because the use before 1965 was by the Holbrooks' permission and no evidence of probative value showed it was adverse, continuous or uninterrupted. The evidence also justified its finding of a right by estoppel: the Taylors' road use, road maintenance and $25,000 home, all with the Holbrooks' actual consent or at least tacit approval, meant the license could not be revoked.