## Facts

- A rural 17-acre unimproved parcel historically was accessed from U.S. Highway 10 by a “field road” crossing neighboring farmland later owned by James and Florence Billig.
- From 1941 to at least January 1982, Rita Sexton and her family used the field road to reach the parcel several times each month between May and October.
- The road segment on the servient land was a visible, hard-packed dirt track wide enough for vehicles and farm machinery.
- A gate existed across the road; in 1981 a lock was added, but Sexton was told she could continue using the road.
- In 1981, Sexton obtained alternative access from the south by a separate easement, and later marketed the parcel (sold in 1992) as accessible via the field road from Highway 10.
- The purchasers, Dean and Lisa Block, sued and ultimately asserted a prescriptive easement over the Billigs’ land based on Sexton’s historic use.
- The district court recognized a prescriptive easement but limited it to (1) May–October use and (2) 20 feet in width.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence established a prescriptive easement over the field road based on Sexton’s use from 1941 to 1982.
2. Whether seasonal use can satisfy the “continuous” element of a prescriptive easement under Minnesota law.
3. Whether the easement’s scope could be limited to the historic seasonal pattern and a 20-foot width.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment recognizing a prescriptive easement benefiting the Blocks as successors to Sexton.
- The court held that seasonal use may satisfy continuity when regular and consistent with the nature of the property and the use claimed.
- The court upheld the limits of May–October use and a 20-foot width as consistent with the character, purpose, and extent of the use during the prescriptive period.
- The court rejected arguments to expand the easement beyond the historic pattern of use.

## Legal Principles

- A prescriptive easement requires use that is open, continuous, exclusive, and hostile (adverse) for the statutory period (15 years).
- “Continuous” use is evaluated in light of the nature of the land and customary use; year-round use is not required when seasonal, recurring use is typical for the property.
- A prescriptive easement is confined to the character, purpose, and extent of the use proven during the prescriptive period and cannot be enlarged by judicial construction.
- Once established, a prescriptive easement appurtenant runs with the dominant estate and may be asserted by successors in interest.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed recognition of a prescriptive easement based on decades of open, recurring seasonal travel over a field road, holding that seasonal use can be continuous for prescription and that the easement must remain limited to the historic seasonal use and width established during the prescriptive period.


Block v. Sexton, 577 N.W.2d 521 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998)