In 1963, the Englemans sold a portion of their tract of land to REB, Inc. REB was given an appurtenant easement to a roadway to access a public highway. In 1969, the Englemans sold their remaining land to Mueller (defendant). Through a series of conveyances, Coffee and Hoblyn (plaintiffs) came to be owners of REB’s land, which REB subdivided. Coffee and Hoblyn sometimes were unable to use the roadway due to high snow drifts in the winter. In 1990, Coffee had the land surveyed and discovered that the path of the roadway did not correspond with the recorded easement except for a small overlapping portion. However, back in 1977, Mueller had drilled a water well and did some farming within the easement boundaries. He also fenced the area. Mueller thus refused to allow Coffee and Hoblyn to use the proper easement, claiming that the easement had been abandoned and that he had extinguished the easement by adverse possession. The district court found that, by operation of adverse possession, the water well terminated the easement with respect to a 200-feet long section of the easement. Both parties appealed: Mueller claiming the entire easement was destroyed, and Hoblyn and Coffee claiming no part of the easement was destroyed.