Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the owners of a restaurant appealed a summary judgment in favor of a mall owner regarding their alleged right to use an adjacent parking lot. The plaintiffs claimed a prescriptive easement, citing over twenty years of continuous use for customer parking and delivery truck access. The circuit court granted summary judgment to the mall owner, finding the use was permissive and not adverse, thus negating a prescriptive easement. Additionally, the court dismissed the claim for an implied easement for customer parking, emphasizing the availability of alternative parking options. However, the South Dakota Supreme Court identified a factual dispute concerning the necessity of the parking lot for delivery truck access, as plaintiffs demonstrated that large vehicles could not easily access the restaurant otherwise. Consequently, the summary judgment was partially reversed, remanding the delivery truck access issue for trial. The decision clarifies the distinction between permissive use and adverse use required for prescriptive easements, as well as the necessity criteria for implied easements, with the court notably relying on precedents such as Granite Properties Ltd. P. ship. v. Manns to guide its analysis.
Legal Issues Addressed
Implied Easements by Necessitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that plaintiffs failed to establish an implied easement by necessity for customer parking due to the availability of alternative parking and access options, emphasizing that convenience does not equate to necessity.
Reasoning: The circuit court determined that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence to support the existence of an implied easement for customer parking in the mall lot, noting the restaurant's own parking facilities and street access.
Implied Easements from Prior Usesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The South Dakota Supreme Court found a factual dispute regarding the necessity of the mall lot for delivery truck access, as plaintiffs provided evidence that large vehicles could only access the restaurant through the mall parking lot.
Reasoning: However, the court's ruling on an implied easement for delivery truck access was deemed premature, as plaintiffs presented evidence indicating that large vehicles could only access the restaurant through the mall parking lot.
Prescriptive Easementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiffs claimed a prescriptive right to use the mall parking lot, asserting over twenty years of open and notorious use with customer access and delivery truck ingress/egress. However, the court found the use was permissive and akin to general public access, not adverse to the mall owner's interests.
Reasoning: The mall owner, however, argues that public use of the parking lot was permitted and not adverse to its interests.
Standard for Implied Easements from Prior Usesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: To establish an implied easement from prior use, the claimant must show four elements, including the necessity of the easement for reasonable enjoyment of the dominant tract. In this case, the necessity for customer parking was not proven.
Reasoning: To establish an implied easement from prior use, the claimant must demonstrate:... (4) the easement is necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the dominant tract.