## Facts

- Vonda Lee Lantz owned about sixty acres in Barbour County, West Virginia, with a portion bordering County Route 5/10.
- A dirt roadway known as Miner Road ran from Route 5/10 across Lantz’s property toward an area referred to as Miner Hollow.
- In the early 1900s, while a local coal mine operated, residents and mine-related traffic regularly used Miner Road to cross what is now Lantz’s land to reach the county road.
- Over time, the long, open, and adverse use of Miner Road created an easement by prescription for the benefit of neighboring landowners.
- After the mine closed and many workers moved away, the use of Miner Road declined, and Lantz placed a gate across the road.
- Despite the gate, owners of adjacent property continued to pass through the gate on occasion to reach their land.
- In August 1992, James Albert Strahin bought a 5.75-acre tract from Richard Newman; the tract’s access depended on traveling Miner Road across Lantz’s property.
- Strahin intended to build a home on the tract, but Lantz later locked the gate to prevent Strahin from using Miner Road.
- Strahin and other plaintiffs sued in the Circuit Court of Barbour County seeking to enjoin Lantz from blocking the road and to confirm the continuing prescriptive easement.
- The circuit court concluded that the prescriptive easement had been abandoned and was extinguished, and it effectively allowed Lantz to keep the gate locked.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

## Issues

1. What must a party prove to show abandonment of an easement by prescription, including the burden of proof and the required level of proof?
2. Did Lantz prove, under that standard, that the Miner Road prescriptive easement was abandoned?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the circuit court and remanded.
- The court adopted the majority rule that abandonment of a prescriptive easement is an intent-based inquiry: nonuse alone does not extinguish the right.
- The party asserting abandonment must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, both nonuse and surrounding facts that show an intent to abandon.
- On this record, the evidence did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard because there was still occasional use by neighboring owners and the circumstances did not show a voluntary relinquishment of the right.
- Applying its standard of review for bench trials, the court concluded the evidence plainly and decidedly weighed against the circuit court’s abandonment finding.

## Legal Principles

- Abandonment of an easement by prescription is a question of intention and may be shown only by nonuse combined with circumstances evidencing an intent to abandon the right.
- The party asserting that a prescriptive easement no longer exists bears the burden to prove abandonment by clear and convincing evidence.
- In a nonjury case, a trial court’s factual findings are given the same weight as a jury verdict and are not disturbed unless the evidence plainly and decidedly preponderates against the finding.
- A gate, reduced frequency of travel, or periods of limited use do not, without more, establish abandonment of a prescriptive easement.

## Conclusion

Strahin v. Lantz holds that a prescriptive easement is not lost through nonuse alone; abandonment requires clear and convincing proof of nonuse plus facts showing an intent to give up the easement, and Lantz did not carry that burden as to Miner Road, so the judgment finding abandonment was reversed and the case remanded.


Strahin v. Lantz, 456 S.E.2d 12 (1995)