## Facts

- Two adjacent businesses in London, Kentucky—a restaurant (operated by the Weavers) and a clothing store (Bob’s Ready to Wear, operated by the Parmans)—shared access to a rear lot historically used for parking and rear entry.
- The properties were formerly under common ownership (the Eversoles), including a vacant rear lot extending to a street behind the buildings.
- In 1965, the Eversoles leased the rear lot to the City of London, which operated it as a metered municipal parking lot used by the public, including customers and employees of both businesses.
- In 1971, the Eversoles sold the restaurant building to the Weavers and the clothing store building to the Parmans; the Parmans also purchased a small paved strip behind their store that opened onto the municipal parking lot and served as a rear entrance.
- The Parmans made valuable improvements to their rear entrance area to facilitate access between the store and the public parking lot, with knowledge of the owners.
- In 1976, the Weavers purchased the rear lot from the Eversoles and erected a chain-link fence that enclosed the Parmans’ rear strip and blocked passage between the parking lot and the store’s rear entrance.
- The Parmans sued for an injunction requiring removal of the fence and recognition of access rights based on prescription, implication, or equitable estoppel; the trial court dismissed the complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether long-term use of a municipal/public parking lot for rear access created a prescriptive easement.
2. Whether an easement arose by implication from prior use upon severance of commonly owned property.
3. Whether equitable estoppel (or an irrevocable license) prevented the new lot owner from blocking access after the store owners made improvements in reliance on continued access.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the trial court.
- It held no prescriptive easement existed because the use was permissive and in common with the public rather than adverse.
- It held no easement by implication arose because rear access was not strictly necessary (the store had a front entrance) and a permanent burden on the parking lot was not justified.
- It held the Weavers were equitably estopped from revoking the store’s rear-access use because the Parmans made valuable improvements in reasonable reliance, with the owners’ knowledge.
- The court ordered injunctive relief barring obstruction of access between the store’s rear entrance and the parking lot, but only so long as the lot continued to be used as a municipal/public parking area.

## Legal Principles

- A prescriptive easement requires open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use for the statutory period; use of a public parking lot in common with the general public is typically permissive and does not satisfy adversity.
- An easement implied from prior use after severance is evaluated using multiple factors, including degree of necessity, prior use under common ownership, and the burden on the servient estate; mere convenience is generally insufficient.
- Although licenses are ordinarily revocable at will, an owner may be equitably estopped to revoke a license when the licensee, with the owner’s knowledge, makes valuable improvements in reliance on continued use.
- Equitable relief may be limited by conditions that match the reliance context, rather than creating an unconditional servitude.

## Conclusion

The court denied both prescriptive and implied easement theories but granted conditional injunctive relief on equitable estoppel grounds, preventing the parking-lot owner from fencing off the store’s rear access where improvements were made in reliance on continued access to a public parking facility.


Bob’s Ready to Wear, Inc. v. Weaver, 569 S.W.2d 715 (Ky. Ct. App. 1978)