Matthew Malters

Document Type

Case Summary

Publication Date

4-28-2024

Case Synopsis

This case establishes an important distinction between adverse possession and prescriptive easements in Nevada. Adverse possession requires hostile, actual, peaceable, open, notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted possession for five years, plus the payment of any relevant taxes. A prescriptive easement, on the other hand, only requires adverse, continuous, open, and peaceable use for five years, without any tax payments. The Court rejected the Joneses’ attempt to claim a comprehensive prescriptive easement that would grant them exclusive control over a 591-square-foot area that was owned by Ghadiri. The Court’s analysis hinged on the fact that comprehensive prescriptive easements blur the line between adverse possession and prescriptive easements. Comprehensive prescriptive easements are permissible only under exceptional circumstances, which the Joneses failed to demonstrate. As such, the Court affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ghadiri, since the Joneses’ claims did not meet the criteria for either adverse possession or a comprehensive prescriptive easement. Ultimately, this case strengthens Nevada’s property law by providing new case law and an analysis that better differentiates between adverse possession and prescriptive easements.

Download

Share

COinS