## Facts

- In 1963, the predecessor in interest to Michael and Kathryn Melendez built a house on what later became their property (Lot 17).
- From that time, the Lot 17 occupants used a driveway that crossed a neighboring parcel (Lot 16) to reach their home.
- The owner of Lot 16 also used part of the driveway for access to the Lot 16 residence.
- The Lot 17 predecessor constructed an additional portion of driveway that began on Lot 16 and branched into Lot 17, creating a Y-shaped configuration.
- The Lot 16 owner did not use the new branch that led into Lot 17.
- The Lot 17 occupants used the driveway openly and continuously for many years, including use of the branch that served Lot 17.
- In 1981, James Hintz purchased Lot 16.
- In 1982, the Melendezes purchased Lot 17 and continued using both parts of the driveway as they had been used historically.
- In 1983, Hintz blocked the driveway to stop the Melendezes’ use.
- The Melendezes sued, claiming they had obtained a prescriptive easement over the driveway on Lot 16.
- The trial court ruled for the Melendezes and recognized a prescriptive easement; Hintz appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Melendezes and their predecessors established a prescriptive easement over the driveway on Lot 16 by showing open, notorious, continuous, uninterrupted use under a claim of right for the prescriptive period, rather than permissive use.
2. Whether any “joint use” doctrine applied so that the Melendezes’ use should be treated as permissive because a portion of the driveway was used by both properties.
3. If a prescriptive easement existed, whether its scope was limited to only one prong of the Y-shaped driveway or extended to both prongs used during the prescriptive period.

## Decision

- The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment recognizing a prescriptive easement in favor of the Melendezes.
- The court held the long-term driveway use supported a presumption of adverse use under a claim of right, and Hintz did not show that the use was permissive.
- The court declined to treat the facts as merely “joint use” that would convert the use into permissive use on these circumstances, particularly where a separate branch was built and used for Lot 17.
- The court approved the easement’s scope as extending to both prongs of the Y-shaped driveway because that matched the nature and extent of the use during the prescriptive period.

## Legal Principles

- A prescriptive easement requires proof (by clear and convincing evidence under Idaho law) of open, notorious, continuous, uninterrupted use of another’s land for the prescriptive period, with the servient owner’s actual or constructive knowledge, and under a claim of right.
- When long, open, and continuous use is shown and there is no evidence explaining how the use began, Idaho law applies a presumption that the use was adverse and under a claim of right.
- Once the presumption of adversity applies, the servient owner bears the burden to prove the claimant’s use was permissive, such as by license, contract, or other authorization.
- Use is “adverse” when it amounts to an actual invasion of the servient owner’s rights and is exercised without permission; constructing and using a separate driveway branch on the servient parcel for the claimant’s benefit may support adversity.
- Prior Idaho decisions discussing a permissive inference from shared use do not bar a prescriptive easement where the claimant’s use is not merely identical shared travel but includes a distinct branch serving the claimant’s parcel.
- The scope of a prescriptive easement is defined by the character, location, and extent of the historical use during the prescriptive period; courts generally do not cut back the easement to something less than what was actually used adversely and continuously.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed a prescriptive easement for the Melendezes over the driveway crossing Hintz’s Lot 16 because the long, visible, continuous use—especially of the separately built branch serving Lot 17—was presumed adverse and not shown to be permissive, and the easement’s scope matched the established pattern of use, covering both prongs of the Y-shaped driveway.


Melendez v. Hintz, 724 P.2d 137 (1986)