## Facts

- Michael J. O’Dell owned property fronting a public road, with direct access via a driveway on the south side of his residence (a former church).
- A private gravel lane ran north of O’Dell’s property and also connected to the public road; fee ownership of the lane was uncertain.
- Robert and Virginia Stegall owned a landlocked parcel behind O’Dell’s property; the gravel lane was their only practical access to the public road.
- For decades, when the property was owned by a church, church members used the lane to reach a rear parking area.
- After purchasing the property in 1999 and converting it to a residence, O’Dell used the lane to access a horseshoe-shaped driveway on the north side of his property.
- The Stegalls participated in a private maintenance agreement with other adjacent owners, obligating them to share lane upkeep costs.
- The Stegalls objected to O’Dell’s use, asserted it increased wear, and in 2008 reported alleged trespass to police, photographed O’Dell using the lane, and recorded a conversation with him about the lane.
- O’Dell sued for recognition of a prescriptive easement over the lane and obtained a jury verdict recognizing the easement and awarding damages for interference.
- The circuit court entered judgment on the verdict; the Stegalls appealed.

## Issues

1. What elements must a claimant prove to establish a prescriptive easement in West Virginia, and what burden of proof applies?
2. Whether the evidence established, by clear and convincing proof, each independent element of a prescriptive easement, including adverse use and a sufficiently definite description of the easement’s scope.
3. Whether the judgment and damages award based on the jury’s prescriptive-easement finding could stand under the clarified legal standards.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded.
- The court clarified and formalized a four-element test for prescriptive easements and reaffirmed a clear-and-convincing-evidence burden.
- The court held that prescriptive easements are disfavored and must be strictly proved.
- The court concluded the evidence did not satisfy the required elements—particularly adversity and definite identification of the easement’s location and dimensions—so the verdict recognizing a prescriptive easement could not stand.
- Because the easement finding failed, the associated damages award for interference also could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- A claimant must prove each of the following elements to establish a prescriptive easement: (1) adverse use of another’s land; (2) continuous and uninterrupted adverse use for at least ten years; (3) the adverse use was actually known to the landowner or was open, notorious, and visible enough that a reasonable owner would have noticed; and (4) a reasonably identified starting point, ending point, line, and width of the land used, and the manner or purpose of the use.
- All elements of prescriptive use, including adversity, must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
- Each element is a necessary and independent fact; failure to prove any one element defeats the claim.
- “Adverse use” in this context turns on observable actions and statements of the claimant and owner, not the claimant’s uncommunicated subjective intent or personal hostility.
- Courts should treat prescriptive easements as disfavored and require strict proof to avoid imposing uncompensated burdens on landowners and creating uncertainty over property rights.

## Conclusion

The court rejected a jury-recognized prescriptive easement and related damages, holding that West Virginia requires clear and convincing proof of four independent elements—especially objective adversity and definite scope—and that prescriptive easements are not favored and must be strictly established.


O’Dell v. Stegall, 226 W. Va. 590, 703 S.E.2d 561 (W. Va. 2010)