Paxson v. Glovitz
Court of Appeals of Arizona
50 P.3d 420 (2002)
- Written by Patrick Busch, JD
Facts
In 1979, the owners of two adjoining parcels of land orally agreed to create an easement along with a boundary line between the parcels. The easement, which was twenty feet wide, was intended to last for all time, and was used to construct a paved roadway. Although the easement was never recorded in any written document, the public used the roadway, and subsequent owners of the property believed that the public had a right to access the road. In 1995, Paxson (plaintiff) acquired one parcel, and in 1998, Glovitz (defendant) acquired the other. At the time of the purchases, both parties were told that the general public had a right to use the road. In 2000, Glovitz began to construct a fence along his property line over the driveway, and Paxson filed suit to obtain an easement by prescription for the portion of the driveway that lay on Glovitz’s land. Glovitz moved for summary judgment, claiming that Paxson’s claim had no basis in law or fact, and alternatively that Paxson had expanded the scope of the easement. The trial court granted Glovitz’ motion for summary judgment, and awarded him attorney’s fees, finding that Paxson’s suit had no basis in law or in fact. Paxson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ehrlich, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
