B. [§ 6.14] Prescriptive Easement

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

B. [§ 6.14] Prescriptive Easement

For a thorough consideration of Maryland easement law, see Lindsay v. Annapolis Roads Property Owners Ass'n, 431 Md. 274, 64 A.3d 916 (2013) and Rogers v. P-M Hunter's Ridge, 407 Md. 712, 967 A.2d 807 (2009).

"'An easement is a nonpossessory interest in the real property of another.'" Banks v. Pusey, 393 Md. 688, 698, 904 A.2d 448, 454 (2006) (quoting Jurgensen v. New Phoenix Atl. Condo. Council of Unit Owners, 380 Md. 106, 122, 843 A.2d 865, 874 (2004)) (internal quotation marks omitted). An easement may arise expressly through a grant in a deed, see Brown v. Smith, 173 Md. App. 459, 474, 920 A.2d 18, 26 (2007) (discussing strict construction of easements granted in deeds), or by implication, as is the case with a prescriptive easement. Jurgensen, 380 Md. 106, 843 A.2d 865. The court's role in deciding easement disputes is not to establish the easement but rather to "affirm or not" that the easement exists and, if need be, protect it. Stansbury v. MDR Dev., L.L.C., 390 Md. 476, 486, 889 A.2d 403, 410 (2006). For a thorough consideration of Maryland easement law, see Rogers v. P-M Hunter's Ridge, 407 Md. 712, 967 A.2d 807 (2009).

To be successful in a claim of prescriptive easement the claimant must have used another's real property in an adverse, exclusive and uninterrupted manner for a period of 20 years. Kirby v. Hook, 347 Md. 380, 392, 701 A.2d 397, 403 (1997). The elements parallel the elements for adverse possession, except that "exclusive" is defined differently in the context of prescriptive easements, as discussed below. The Court of Special Appeals, citing to Kirby, reiterated the "common-law doctrine of easement by prescription or adverse use" in Muffoletto v....