Prescriptive easement; Astemborski v Manetta

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding plaintiffs established a prescriptive easement over the driveway between the parties’ homes and in determining its scope. On appeal, the court rejected defendants’ argument that the easement only included the use of the driveway to drive to and from the lake, and that parking and exiting the vehicles exceeded that scope. Testimony from plaintiffs and their neighbor established that “the driveway had been in use by plaintiffs and their predecessors for at least 31 years, and that plaintiffs had previously parked their cars on the land as a driveway with the ability to get in and out of their vehicles.” In addition, “entering and exiting a vehicle were incidental uses of the driveway easement because the easement can be informed by the customary use of the easement holder. The trial court was empowered to make these and other fact-based findings, and we must defer to those findings so long as they have evidentiary support, which they did here.” Affirmed.