Gajewski v. Taylor, 940306
| Decision Date | 29 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 940306,940306 |
| Parties | L.R. GAJEWSKI and Mervin Gajewski, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. James L. TAYLOR, Defendant and Appellant. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
L.R. Gajewski and Mervin Gajewski, pro se.
James L. Taylor, pro se.
James L. Taylor appealed from a judgment of the district court, Northwest Judicial District, finding that Mervin and L.R. Gajewski had obtained a prescriptive easement to maintain a mailbox on Taylor's property. We affirm.
Taylor owns land which is separated from the Gajewskis' land by a public roadway. For efficiency and safety, the United States Postal Service requires that all rural mailboxes are erected on one side of the roadway. The Gajewskis' mailbox is located on Taylor's property, within the right-of-way and adjacent to the road. According to the trial testimony of current and retired postal employees, the Gajewskis have maintained the mailbox in the same basic location for at least twenty years and possibly more than fifty years. The property on which the mailbox sits has been in Taylor's exclusive possession since August 1959, and he received title to the land in January 1965.
According to Taylor, he once nearly ran his car into the mailbox while avoiding a collision with a truck approaching from the opposite direction. In November of 1993, Taylor asked the Gajewskis to move their mailbox. The testimony surrounding these negotiations is contradictory. However, it appears that an attempt was made to get the post office to approve of and deliver mail to a mailbox on the Gajewskis' side of the road. The postal service authorities, citing safety concerns, objected and requested that the mailbox remain at its long-term location. According to the testimony of postal service workers, the Gajewskis' mailbox creates no more danger than other mailboxes and is in a standard position on the roadway.
This matter began in the district court when the Gajewskis asked for and received a restraining order to keep Taylor from moving or removing the mailbox. After the district court was presented with several motions and cross motions by the parties, it determined that the dispositive issue before the court was whether the Gajewskis had obtained a prescriptive easement to maintain the mailbox. This was the sole issue tried by the court. 1
Whether the facts before the trial court support the conclusion that the Gajewskis have obtained a prescriptive easement is a question of law, and questions of law are fully reviewable on appeal. E.g., Nagel v. Emmons County Water Resource Dist., 474 N.W.2d 46 (N.D.1991). However, our review of the district court's findings of fact is governed by the "clearly erroneous" standard of Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P. E.g., Giese v. Morton County, 464 N.W.2d 202 (N.D.1990). If the district court's findings have support in the evidence and we are not "left with a definite and firm conviction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wagner v. Crossland Constr. Co.
...court support the conclusion that a prescriptive easement exists is a question of law fully reviewable on appeal. See Gajewski v. Taylor, 536 N.W.2d 360, 362 (N.D.1995). [¶ 17] An easement by necessity “arises where there is a conveyance of a part of a tract of land of such nature and exten......
-
Van Raden Homes, Inc. v. Dakota View Estates
...are fully reviewable on appeal, we will only set aside a trial court's findings of fact if they are clearly erroneous. Gajewski v. Taylor, 536 N.W.2d 360, 362 (N.D.1995). As we explained in Mahoney v. Mahoney, 538 N.W.2d 189, 192 (N.D.1995), a "finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is ......
-
Fischer v. Berger, 20050182.
...by prescription if the use is adverse, continuous and uninterrupted, and for the 20 year period of prescription. Gajewski v. Taylor, 536 N.W.2d 360, 362 (N.D.1995); Nagel v. Emmons County Water Res. Dist., 474 N.W.2d 46, 48 (N.D.1991). Except for the requirement of public use for establishi......
-
North Dakota ex rel. Stenehjem v. United States
...that the contesting landowner never objected to the public using the road. Morton County, 221 N.W. at 271-72; see also Gajewski v. Taylor, 536 N.W.2d 360, 362 (N.D. 1995).26) The width of the prescriptive road is determined by the actual use over the prescriptive period and may include part......