Question

The Wallen family owned a cabin on Lummi Island in the state of Washington. A driveway ran from the cabin across their property to South Nugent Road. Floyd Massey bought the adjacent lot and built a cabin on it in 1980. To gain access to his property, Massey used a bulldozer to extend the driveway, without the Wallens’ permission but also without their objection. In 2005, the Wallens sold their property to Wright Fish Company. Massey continued to use and maintain the driveway without permission or objection. In 2011, Massey sold his property to Robert Drake. Drake and his employees continued to use and maintain the driveway without permission or objection, although Drake knew it was located largely on Wright’s property. In 2013, Wright sold its lot to Robert Smersh. The next year, Smersh told Drake to stop using the driveway. Drake filed a suit against Smersh, claiming an easement by prescription (which is created by meeting the same requirements as adverse possession). (See Transfer of Ownership.)

determine how the court should rule in this case and why. Does it matter that Drake knew the driveway was located largely on Wright’s (and then Smersh’s) property? Should it matter? Why or why not?

Answer 1

Here in this There is Transfer of ownership where the property rights arare now with Smersh due to which he had all the rightrights to claim his property and can refuse Drake to use his property.

Here I think court can order in favour of Smersh and Drake does not get the right to use Smresh's property. Though he claimed it under right of prescription. But the right of prescription is only provided when there is no objection or interruption by the real owner of the property for a longer time.

Before the property was with other person who didn't had any objections but now it's been transferred to another (Smersh) who clearly refused Drake to use his property.

Drake knew that the driveway was largely located on Smersh's property so he can't deny that the ownership rights of Smersh.

So on the whole according to me the court would order in favour of Smersh.

Because in the above facts when the property was with previous and he didn't had any objections on the use of his property then only the right of prescription could have been available with Drake.