The Massachusetts Land Court granted a prescriptive easement to neighbors who crossed a path on foot or on bicycle to get to the waterfront. Fantoni v. Assad, 2015 Mass. LCR LEXIS 108, 2015 WL 4208469 (Mass. Land Ct. 2015). The owner of the servient estate was aware that neighbors were using the path but did not stop them or object until an altercation broke out when one of the walkers kicked a neighbor’s dog. The court applied the traditional rule presuming the use to be adverse in the absence of any evidence of consent or permission. Once open use is established for the twenty-year statutory purpose, the burden is on the servient owner to show that permission was given for the use. If no permission can be shown by the servient owner, the access is presumed to be adverse. A minority of states now go the other way, presuming that limited use […]

When someone intentionally builds a building or part of a building on land owned by another, the land owner may obtain an injunction ordering removal of the trespassory structure. But when someone innocently builds a structure that encroaches on neighboring property, many courts today applied the undue hardship or relative hardshp doctrine and allow the structure to remain on the ground that land owner is partly at fault for not noticing the incursion and stopping it before substantial expense is undertaken by the innocent builder. In such cases, the court usually orders a forced sale of the land on which the building sits. See, e.g., Somerville v. Jacobs, 170 S.E.2d 805 (W.Va. 1969). However, older cases would order removal rather than a forced sale and the Rhode Island Supreme Court apparently prefers the older approach.  In Rose Nulman Park Found. ex rel. Nulman v. Four Twenty Corp., 93 A.3d 25 (R.I. 2014),