Prescriptive Easement


Phoenix East Assoc., Inc. v. Perdido Dunes Tower Condominium Assoc., etc., [Ms. SC-2023-0481, Apr. 5, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Mitchell, J.; Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Mendheim, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur; Sellers, J., concurs in the result) affirms the Baldwin Circuit Court’s judgment granting a prescriptive easement.

This appeal arises from a property dispute between neighboring condominium associations, Perdido Dunes and Phoenix East, concerning a two-and-a-half-foot-wide strip of land between their properties. The Baldwin Circuit Court granted Perdido Dunes a prescriptive easement over the disputed property.

The Court reiterates established law concerning the elements of a prescriptive easement. In addition, the Court finds that the individual Phoenix East condominium owners were not necessary parties to the action under Ala. R. Civ. P. 19 because Phoenix East adequately represented their interests. Citing Byrd Cos. v. Smith, 591 So. 2d 844, (Ala. 1991), the Court notes “when a party adequately represents the absent parties’ interests, Rule 19 does not require those absent parties to be joined in the litigation.” Ms. **14-15.

The Court determines there was credible evidence to support the trial court’s holding that Perdido Dunes acquired a prescriptive easement and affirms Baldwin Circuit Court’s judgment.

Related Documents