Prescriptive easement; Mulcahy v Verines; “Continuous” use of the property; Von Mending v Strahl; “Adverse or hostile” use; Inadmissible hearsay; MRE 602, MRE 801(c), & MRE 802; Ykimoff v Foote Mem’l Hosp

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding defendant had a prescriptive easement over the driveway at issue. Plaintiff filed this action against defendant seeking to quiet title to the driveway. Defendant filed a counterclaim for adverse possession, acquiescence, and prescriptive easement. The trial court found defendant established he had a prescriptive easement to use the driveway before plaintiff purchased the property from the previous owner, and that defendant’s “undisputed evidence showed that he had used the driveway for almost eighteen years before plaintiff’s purchase of” the property. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by finding defendant established the elements of a prescriptive easement. “In light of the fact that defendant’s documentary evidence was unrebutted by any admissible evidence from plaintiff . . . the trial court did not err by holding that defendant’s use of the driveway had been hostile or adverse for the requisite 15-year prescriptive period.” Plaintiff also briefly argued that “defendant’s use of the driveway was not continuous, but only support[ed] that argument with statements from affiants who first observed defendant’s use of the driveway long after the prescriptive period had passed.” Plaintiff offered “no evidence to counter defendant’s sworn statement that his prior use of the driveway was continuous considering the nature of the property as a driveway for a residential home.” Affirmed.