Question

Asa E. Phillips owned property in Seal Harbor, Maine. His deed included a 20-foot right-of-way over property owned by Kate Gregg and W. Layton Stewart. The right-of-way had long been reduced to a five-foot-wide footpath and was largely overgrown with trees. Gregg and Stewart had placed gates and warning signs along the paths to discourage Phillips’s use. Phillips brought suit for an injunction to prevent Gregg and Stewart from interfering with his use of his right-of-way. Greg and Stewart claimed he had abandoned his easement through nonuse. Who is correct? How should the court determine abandonment?

Answer 1

Right of the way gives someiso a right to travel along another person land or property. Mostly this right of way will be seen in property deeds.

In this case also right of way is given by Gregg and Stewart to Phillips. In the property deeds which gave Phillips access to 20 foot right of way property owned by Gregg and Stewart.

Gregg and Stewart are interfering with Phillips right of way by reducing it to 5 foot wide foot path which is earlier 20 foot wide foot path and they even tried to keep gates along with signs to discourage Phillips usage of right of way which is a actionable offence.

Here Phillips is correct as Gregg and Stewart are interfering with his right of way by reducing his foot path and also keeping gates with signs. Whatever Phillips done is correct as he is having right of way in Gregg and Stewart property.

Court determine abandonment only if Gregg and Stewart proves that Phillips is not using his right of way for long. Unless until than court does not remove Phillips right of way.