prescriptive easement claim in Oregon

2024When review- ing a “trial court’s decision to grant a prescriptive easement we uphold the court’s express and implied findings of fact if there is any evidence in the record to support them.” Hisey v. Patrick, 309 Or App 625, 627 , 484 P3d 377 , rev den, 368 Or 347 (2021) (so explaining after a trial on a prescriptive easement claim).

2024When review- ing a “trial court’s decision to grant a prescriptive easement we uphold the court’s express and implied findings of fact if there is any evidence in the record to support them.” Hisey v. Patrick, 309 Or App 625, 627 , 484 P3d 377 , rev den, 368 Or 347 (2021) (so explaining after a trial on a prescriptive easement claim).

2026Plaintiff argued and contin- ues to argue that those post-dismissal declarations were “self-serving hearsay,” which “should not have been consid- ered by the Trial Court.”3 In a letter opinion, the trial court determined that, while “[t]here may be some instances where a factual deter- mination may be required, * * * this court finds that it is not necessary in this case” because, “[e]ven without the declara- tions, the court finds that the claim for easement by neces- sity was clearly devoid of any legal or factual support[.]” As to the prescriptive easement claim, the trial court deter- mine

2026Plaintiff argued and contin- ues to argue that those post-dismissal declarations were “self-serving hearsay,” which “should not have been consid- ered by the Trial Court.”3 In a letter opinion, the trial court determined that, while “[t]here may be some instances where a factual deter- mination may be required, * * * this court finds that it is not necessary in this case” because, “[e]ven without the declara- tions, the court finds that the claim for easement by neces- sity was clearly devoid of any legal or factual support[.]” As to the prescriptive easement claim, the trial court deter- mine

2026In relevant part, ORS 20.105(1) states: “In any civil action, suit or other proceeding in a circuit court or in the regular division or the magistrate division of the Oregon Tax Court, or in any civil appeal to or review by the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees to a party against whom a claim, defense or ground for appeal or review is asserted, if that party is a prevailing party in the proceeding and to be paid by the party asserting the claim, defense or ground, upon a finding by the court that the party willfully dis- obeyed a court order or t

2026In relevant part, ORS 20.105(1) states: “In any civil action, suit or other proceeding in a circuit court or in the regular division or the magistrate division of the Oregon Tax Court, or in any civil appeal to or review by the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, the court shall award reasonable attorney fees to a party against whom a claim, defense or ground for appeal or review is asserted, if that party is a prevailing party in the proceeding and to be paid by the party asserting the claim, defense or ground, upon a finding by the court that the party willfully disobeyed a court order or tha

2017Use qualifies as “open and notorious” if it provides the landowner with “a reasonable opportunity to learn of its existence and nature.” Thompson v. Schuh, 286 Or 201, 211 , 593 P2d 1138 (1979).

2017Use qualifies as “open and notorious” if it provides the landowner with “a reasonable opportunity to learn of its existence and nature.” Thompson v. Schuh, 286 Or 201, 211 , 593 P2d 1138 (1979).

2017Boyer v. Abston, 274 Or 161, 163-64 , 544 P2d 1031 (1976).

2017Boyer v. Abston, 274 Or 161, 163-64 , 544 P2d 1031 (1976).

2022“No claim for either adverse possession or prescriptive easement has been proven for that portion of the disputed Cite as 318 Or App 247 (2022) 253 land between the concrete wall and the partial wire fence to the south of said wall[;] that remains [plaintiffs’] property.” The court also provided a breakdown claim by claim which provided that defendants’ adverse possession claim was “allowed only to the extent the concrete wall encroaches over the DLC line” and that the prescriptive easement claim was “allowed only to the extent that any building on [defen- dants’] property encroaches over the

2017Williams v. Harrsch, 297 Or 1, 6 , 681 P2d 119 (1984).

2017Williams v. Harrsch, 297 Or 1, 6 , 681 P2d 119 (1984).

2017Weis, 269 Or App at 795 n 3.

2015Defendants contend that plaintiffs claim for a prescriptive easement is now moot for the reason that, after the filing of the notice of appeal, plaintiff vacated the property, and, thus, “a decision in Plaintiffs favor as to the prescriptive easement claim would have no practical effect on Plaintiffs ability to use the [Tuala] Property.” As we have noted, “[a] case is considered moot if a decision by the court ‘no longer will have a practical effect on or concerning the rights of the parties.’” State ex rel O’Connor v. Helm/Clackamas County, 273 Or App 717, 726 , 359 P3d 550 (2015) (quoting Br

2015Defendants contend that plaintiffs claim for a prescriptive easement is now moot for the reason that, after the filing of the notice of appeal, plaintiff vacated the property, and, thus, “a decision in Plaintiffs favor as to the prescriptive easement claim would have no practical effect on Plaintiffs ability to use the [Tuala] Property.” As we have noted, “[a] case is considered moot if a decision by the court ‘no longer will have a practical effect on or concerning the rights of the parties.’” State ex rel O’Connor v. Helm/Clackamas County, 273 Or App 717, 726 , 359 P3d 550 (2015) (quoting Br

2015For instance, “a case becomes moot when an event occurs that ‘render [s] it impossible for the court to grant effectual relief.’” Hamel v. Johnson, 330 Or 180, 184 , 998 P2d 661 (2000) (quoting Greyhound Park v. Ore.

2015For instance, “a case becomes moot when an event occurs that ‘render [s] it impossible for the court to grant effectual relief.’” Hamel v. Johnson, 330 Or 180, 184 , 998 P2d 661 (2000) (quoting Greyhound Park v. Ore.

2015Defendants contend that plaintiffs claim for a prescriptive easement is now moot for the reason that, after the filing of the notice of appeal, plaintiff vacated the property, and, thus, “a decision in Plaintiffs favor as to the prescriptive easement claim would have no practical effect on Plaintiffs ability to use the [Tuala] Property.” As we have noted, “[a] case is considered moot if a decision by the court ‘no longer will have a practical effect on or concerning the rights of the parties.’” State ex rel O’Connor v. Helm/Clackamas County, 273 Or App 717, 726 , 359 P3d 550 (2015) (quoting Br

2015Defendants contend that plaintiffs claim for a prescriptive easement is now moot for the reason that, after the filing of the notice of appeal, plaintiff vacated the property, and, thus, “a decision in Plaintiffs favor as to the prescriptive easement claim would have no practical effect on Plaintiffs ability to use the [Tuala] Property.” As we have noted, “[a] case is considered moot if a decision by the court ‘no longer will have a practical effect on or concerning the rights of the parties.’” State ex rel O’Connor v. Helm/Clackamas County, 273 Or App 717, 726 , 359 P3d 550 (2015) (quoting Br

2009Hoffman, 329 Or at 562 (“The Court of Appeals’ use of prescriptive easement case law to support a presumption of hostility in favor of defendants and to place the burden of proof on plaintiff to show permissive use in this adverse possession case was error.”); Feldman et ux. v. Knapp et ux., 196 Or 453, 476 , 250 P2d 92 (1952) (on proof of the character of use over the statutory period, the “burden of proof resting upon a claimant does not shift in a case of adverse possession; whereas, the burden of proof, that is, the burden of going forward with the evidence, may shift in the case of advers

2009Hoffman, 329 Or at 562 (“The Court of Appeals’ use of prescriptive easement case law to support a presumption of hostility in favor of defendants and to place the burden of proof on plaintiff to show permissive use in this adverse possession case was error.”); Feldman et ux. v. Knapp et ux., 196 Or 453, 476 , 250 P2d 92 (1952) (on proof of the character of use over the statutory period, the “burden of proof resting upon a claimant does not shift in a case of adverse possession; whereas, the burden of proof, that is, the burden of going forward with the evidence, may shift in the case of advers