Private dedication; Little v Kin; Redmond v Van Buren Cnty; Unrecorded plats; Johnstone v Scott; Depiction on the plat of the walks, streets, & parks; Kirchen v Remenga; Intent to create an easement in favor of the lot owners; Whether the easement was extinguished by adverse possession; Beach v Lima Twp

The court held that the evidence supported the conclusion that a common-law private dedication of a “Walk” (referred to as Pebble Drive) and a strip of land called Shore Walk “was created for the benefit of the subdivision’s lot owners.” It also held that defendants failed to show the easement was extinguished by adverse possession. The appeal concerned title and easement rights in Pebble Drive, Shore Walk, and a parcel identified on the unrecorded plats as Spring Park. The court applied Redmond’s analytical framework, under which “the dispositive inquiry is whether a common-law private dedication is established by the unrecorded plat and the relevant historical evidence.” The court found that “the depiction on the plat of the walks, streets, and parks” was evidence that its creators intended the same outcome as if it had been recorded—an easement in the lot owners’ favor. And additional historical evidence in the record supported this was the intent. Thus, the record supported the finding “that the plat creators intended to establish an irrevocable easement in favor of the lot owners over the Walk at issue and Shore Walk. Spring Park appears to be a portion of Shore Walk or an area traversed by Shore Walk. With respect to acceptance, maintenance, and use, evidence demonstrated that lot owners historically used the Walk at issue to access a well near the lake for water” and since approximately 1958, it was “used as a driveway for access to Lot 31 and the lots to its east.” The court rejected defendants’ assertion that the trial court granted “the easement based on implication by necessity or convenience. Rather, [it] relied on the plat and historical evidence of” intent. As to their adverse possession claim, there was “no evidence that the Walk—i.e., Pebble Drive—was ever used in a manner inconsistent with the easement.” While the record showed that it “was used for a substantial period by the owners of lots to the east, there is no evidence that other lot owners in the subdivision were prevented from using [it] until the present dispute arose. The record further reflects that Lot 30 was previously undeveloped and that similar walks exist west of Lot 30, suggesting that other lot owners simply had no need to use Pebble Drive. An easement is not lost by mere neglect of use.” Affirmed.