## Facts

- Joy A. Beebe and her husband bought a residential lot in 1957 in River Crest Acres, near the later-developed Hidden Acres subdivision.
- In 1958, a six-foot-wide rear alley in Hidden Acres connected the back of Beebe’s block to 5th Avenue.
- Starting in 1959, the Beebes regularly drove a boat to and from the rear of their lot; because the alley was too narrow, they drove beyond the alley over the unfenced rear portions of neighboring lots, including lot 14.
- From about 1959–1969, the boat route was used nearly every summer weekend; from 1970–1993, Beebe’s husband used the route many evenings and Saturdays.
- In 1979, the Beebes built a shop at the rear of their lot; Beebe testified her husband drove to it across the rear of lot 14 about five days per week for years.
- Contractors, guests, and family members also used the same route, sometimes at Beebe’s direction.
- The repeated vehicular travel produced visible tire ruts across lot 14 adjacent to the alley.
- After acquiring lot 14, the defendants built a fence that blocked Beebe’s established route.
- Beebe sued for a declaration of a prescriptive roadway easement and an injunction; the trial court declared a 12-foot-wide easement, enjoined interference, and allowed Beebe to enter to make certain repairs.

## Issues

1. Whether Beebe proved, by clear and convincing evidence, continuous and uninterrupted use of the claimed roadway for the ten-year prescriptive period.
2. Whether Beebe’s use was adverse (nonpermissive) rather than permissive.
3. Whether the trial court properly authorized Beebe to enter the easement area to perform maintenance and repairs.
4. On cross-appeal, whether the roadway easement should have been 19 feet wide instead of 12 feet.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on defendants’ appeal and affirmed Beebe’s cross-appeal without discussion.
- The court held that Beebe established a prescriptive easement for a 12-foot-wide roadway across defendants’ property.
- The court concluded the evidence supported continuity despite periodic and seasonal patterns because the use was regular and consistent with the nature of the property and the claimed access.
- The court held the use was adverse where there was no evidence of permission and the use was open, notorious, and longstanding.
- The court upheld the trial court’s order allowing entry to make certain repairs as incident to the roadway easement.
- The injunction prohibiting obstruction or interference with the easement was left in place.

## Legal Principles

- A prescriptive easement requires clear and convincing proof of open and notorious use of another’s land, adverse to the owner’s rights, and continuous and uninterrupted for ten years.
- Continuity is evaluated in light of the character of the property and the nature of the use; regular periodic or seasonal use may satisfy continuity when it reflects the normal pattern of the claimed access.
- Adversity means nonpermissive use under a claim of right; open, notorious, and continuous use for the prescriptive period supports an inference of adversity absent evidence of an express or implied license.
- The scope of a prescriptive roadway easement is limited to the extent shown by the historical use, and reasonable maintenance and repair rights may be recognized as necessary incidents to preserve the easement’s use.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a 12-foot prescriptive roadway easement and related injunctive relief, holding that decades of regular, visible vehicular travel constituted continuous and adverse use for the statutory period and that limited repair and maintenance access was properly allowed as incident to the easement.


Beebe v. DeMarco, 157 Or. App. 176, 968 P.2d 396 (Or. Ct. App. 1998)