Prescriptive easement; “Adverse or hostile use”; Principle that a prescriptive easement is an unopposed, continuous trespass on another’s property for 15 years; Astemborski v Manetta; Whether registration under the Michigan Commercial Forest Act (CFA) precludes prescriptive easements; Distinguishing Goodall v Whitefish Hunting Club

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding plaintiffs established the elements of a prescriptive easement, despite the fact that defendant’s land was protected by the CFA for a portion of the required years of use. Defendant claimed there was no adverse use before his recent ownership of the land because it was protected under the CFA and open to the public. Plaintiffs countered that a prescriptive easement had vested because their “use of the road went well beyond the CFA-protected activities of fishing and hunting.” The trial court agreed, finding they “had used the road for ingress and egress to their properties, and their use ‘was not limited to use during the hunting season or to access a stream or river for fishing.’” On appeal, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by awarding a prescriptive easement across land that was protected under the CFA. The parties “stipulated to the requisite elements of a prescriptive easement in this case.” And it was “clear that plaintiffs’ use of the road was not related to CFA-protected activities—the parties stipulated to the fact that plaintiffs used the road for access to their own parcels, not for access to hunting and fishing locations.” As such, this case was “different from that presented in Goodall. Because plaintiffs’ use went beyond the CFA-protected activities of hunting and fishing, CFA registration did not preclude a prescriptive easement over this road.” Affirmed.