## Facts

- Greg and Donna Swope bought land near the Skyline Ridge Trail in Fairbanks, Alaska.
- After observing people crossing their property, the Swopes posted “no trespassing” signage and erected a barrier.
- Despite the barrier, some members of the public continued to cross the property to access the Skyline Ridge Trail.
- Interior Trails Preservation Coalition, a nonprofit formed in 2002 to keep recreational trails open, alleged the public had used a pathway across the Swopes’ property since the 1950s.
- The Coalition sued to establish a public prescriptive easement for recreational access across the Swopes’ land.
- The superior court dismissed the complaint, concluding (1) the Coalition lacked standing because it did not allege that any member could sue individually, and (2) the Coalition could not satisfy the ten-year use period because it had existed less than ten years.
- The Coalition sought reconsideration and submitted a member affidavit describing many years of trail use; reconsideration was denied.
- The Alaska Supreme Court granted review of the dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff asserting a public prescriptive easement must prove the plaintiff’s own ten years of continuous use, or may prove the easement through continuous public use for the statutory period.
2. Whether a nonprofit organization has associational standing to sue to establish a public prescriptive easement on behalf of its members.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held that for a public prescriptive easement, the plaintiff need not prove the organization’s own ten-year use; proof may be based on continuous use by the public.
- The court held the Coalition had associational standing to pursue the claim on behalf of members affected by the alleged blockage of a long-used access route.
- The court concluded the complaint’s allegations of longstanding public use were sufficient at the pleading stage, and whether use was open, notorious, continuous, and adverse for the prescriptive period presented factual questions not suitable for dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- A public prescriptive easement is a right held in common by the public; it may be established by evidence of open, notorious, continuous, and adverse public use for the statutory period.
- In a public prescriptive easement claim, the plaintiff’s existence (or lack of personal use during the prescriptive period) does not defeat the claim if the alleged right is based on qualifying public use.
- An organization has associational standing when (1) its members would have standing, (2) the interests asserted are germane to the organization’s purpose, and (3) the claim and requested relief do not require participation of individual members as parties.
- At the motion-to-dismiss stage, well-pleaded allegations of long public use and interference state a claim; disputes about the character and continuity of use are for later factual development.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court held that a nonprofit may litigate a claimed public prescriptive easement based on decades of public use and may do so with associational standing, reversing dismissal because the trial court applied a private-easement use requirement and resolved factual questions at the pleading stage.


Interior Trails Preservation Coalition v. Swope, 115 P.3d 527 (Alaska 2005)