Jensen v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 06 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 6798,6798 |
| Parties | Minnie JENSEN, Appellant, v. James A. BROOKS and Lois Brooks, Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
This is the second time this case has come before us on appeal. The first appeal was from an order of the district judge granting Minnie Jensen's Rule 41(b) motion to dismiss the Brookses' complaint because they had failed to prove their case. We reversed and remanded the case for trial. Brooks v. Jensen, 87 Nev. 174, 483 P.2d 650 (1971). At the second trial the lower court found in favor of the Brookses, from which judgment Minnie Jensen has now appealed.
The Brookses filed this action against Minnie Jensen to establish their right to an easement. The easement covered a roadway 23 feet wide that ran parallel and adjacent to a parcel of realty owned by Minnie Jensen. The Brookses predicated their claim upon recorded documents that established their easement as appurtenant to their property, which became a charge upon the parcel owned by Minnie Jensen. Minnie Jensen answered the Brookses' complaint by alleging that the easement had been abandoned, and she counterclaimed against the Brookses, claiming she had acquired fee title to the easement by adverse possession. The chronological history of the recorded documents establishing the easement has been set forth in our first opinion and need not be restated herein. Suffice it to say that we held in that opinion that the recorded documents did establish the 23-foot roadway easement as appurtenant to the Brooks parcel.
The issue on retrial became limited to whether the easement had been lost by abandonment. The district judge found that it had not and ruled in favor of the Brookses. Our inquiry on this issue is limited to whether there is evidence in the record to support the finding of the trial court. If the record contains such evidence, the judgment may not be disturbed on appeal. Perry v. Law Enforcement Electronics, 88 Nev. 180, 495 P.2d 355 (1972).
The loss of an easement by abandonment turns upon the intent of the owner of the dominant tenement, which intention is manifested by the circumstances of the particular case. Nonuse of the easement is evidence of an intention to abandon it. This court, in Mallett v. Uncle Sam Mining Co., 1 Nev. 188 (1865), stated at 204:
'In determining whether one has abandoned his property...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cavell v. Cavell
...v. Deneen, 89 Nev. 98, 507 P.2d 140 (1973); Lyon v. Walker Boudwin Constr. Co., 88 Nev. 646, 503 P.2d 1219 (1972); Jensen v. Brooks, 88 Nev. 651, 503 P.2d 1224 (1972); Ormachea v. Ormachea, 67 Nev. 273 at 280, 217 P.2d 355 (1950); Thompson v. Tonopah Lumber Co., 37 Nev. 183 at 188, 141 P. 6......
- Lyon v. Walker Boudwin Const. Co., 6737
-
Parsons Drilling, Inc. v. Polar Resources Co.
..."is limited to (determining) whether there is evidence in the record to support the finding of the trial court." Jensen v. Brooks, 88 Nev. 651, 653, 503 P.2d 1224 (1972). In calculating the amount of damages, a trial judge is "clothed with a wide discretion. In the absence of a showing of a......
-
Vagabond Hotels, Inc. v. Cohen
...v. Linton, 97 Nev. 103, 625 P.2d 84 (1981); Soller Corp. v. W. B. C. Development, 96 Nev. 704, 615 P.2d 956 (1980); Jensen v. Brooks, 88 Nev. 651, 503 P.2d 1224 (1972). Our review of the instant record, however, demonstrates that the district court's findings are without substantial factual......
-
Table of Cases
...NEVADA ___________________________________________________________________ Brooks v. Jensen, 87 Nev. 174, 483 P.2d 650 (1971), appealed, 503 P.2d 1224 (Nev. 1972): 7.8(2)(c) NEW JERSEY ______________________________________________________________ CSFB 2001-CP-4 Princeton Park Corporate Cen......
-
§7.8 - Duration and Termination of Easements
...the same as the period required to establish the easement by prescription. Brooks v. Jensen, 87 Nev. 174, 483 P.2d 650 (1971), appealed, 503 P.2d 1224 (Nev. 1972); McDonald v. Sargent, 308 Mich. 341, 13 N.W.2d 843 (1944). Other courts use the more qualified rule that nonuse for the prescrip......