## Facts

- Han Farms, Inc. owned agricultural and residential property in Hill County, Montana; Beatrice C. Molitor owned adjacent agricultural property burdened by a roadway.
- A roadway crossing Molitor’s land connected Han Farms’ property to Bullhook Road, a public road.
- Han Farms and its predecessor used the roadway openly and continuously since purchasing the property in 1979 to access the property for residential and agricultural purposes.
- After tenants began living on Han Farms’ property, Molitor claimed roadway traffic increased substantially and included recreational invitees.
- Molitor notified Han Farms that she intended to withdraw permission to use the roadway.
- Han Farms sued for a declaration that it had acquired a prescriptive easement over the roadway.
- The district court found Han Farms proved the elements of prescription and entered judgment recognizing an easement without expressly defining its scope or limits.

## Issues

1. Whether Han Farms proved the elements required to establish a prescriptive easement over the roadway crossing Molitor’s property.
2. Whether the district court erred by failing to define and limit the scope and extent of any prescriptive easement in light of alleged increased and changed use.

## Decision

- Affirmed the judgment that Han Farms established a prescriptive easement.
- Held that Han Farms’ showing of open, notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted use triggered a presumption of adverse use, shifting the burden to Molitor to prove permissive use.
- Concluded Molitor’s evidence was insufficient to rebut the presumption or overturn the district court’s credibility determinations.
- Reversed in part and remanded for the district court to determine and define the easement’s scope and extent based on the historical use that created it and to consider appropriate limits if current uses impose an unreasonable additional burden.

## Legal Principles

- A prescriptive easement requires open, notorious, exclusive, adverse, continuous, and uninterrupted use for the statutory period (five years in Montana).
- When a claimant proves open, notorious, continuous, and uninterrupted use and the use is not shown to have begun by permission, a presumption of adverse use arises and the burden shifts to the servient owner to prove permissive use.
- The scope of a prescriptive easement is measured by the use through which it was created; it does not automatically expand to cover materially different kinds or intensities of use.
- Courts may limit a prescriptive easement to prevent unreasonable additional burdens on the servient estate beyond the historical prescriptive use.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Han Farms’ prescriptive right to use the roadway but required the trial court on remand to define the easement’s permitted use by reference to the historical pattern that established it and to impose limits if later increases or changes in use unreasonably burden the servient property.


Han Farms, Inc. v. Molitor, 70 P.3d 1238 (Mont. 2003)