Mahon v. Haas

468 P.2d 713, 2 Wash. App. 560, 1970 Wash. App. LEXIS 1161
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedApril 29, 1970
Docket51-40466-3
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 468 P.2d 713 (Mahon v. Haas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mahon v. Haas, 468 P.2d 713, 2 Wash. App. 560, 1970 Wash. App. LEXIS 1161 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970).

Opinion

Evans, C. J.

Plaintiff, Catherine Mahon, brought this action seeking damages for trespassing upon land she had recently purchased. Defendants answered claiming the right by prescriptive use to travel as a public right-of-way over the land upon which they were accused of trespassing.

The trial court found the disputed area subject to a prescriptive easement for general use and travel in favor of the public and in favor of defendants Haas, free and clear of any claim or right by plaintiff except the right to use and travel the same as a member of the general public. The court also required plaintiff Mahon to remove a greenhouse which she had placed upon the property and dismissed plaintiff’s action for damages.

For the purpose of clarity, a sketch of the area in question is set forth herein. The shaded triangular area represents the prescriptive easement granted by the court, and will be referred to herein as the disputed area.

The trial court found that prior to 1930, defendants’ predecessors in interest began regular use and travel without objection or interference of a roadway approximately 15 feet in width adjacent to the east line of lots 1 to 10 of block 48 and utilized the disputed wider area east of lots 11 to 15 of said block 48, and thence westerly across lot 15 to Second Street. The principal use was for the purpose of obtaining access to an ice manufacturing plant owned by

*562

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lester And Susan Riley v. David And Susan Valaer
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2020
Casey Dougherty v. Holiday Hills Community Club, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2016
Beres v. United States
104 Fed. Cl. 408 (Federal Claims, 2012)
Proctor v. Huntington
238 P.3d 1117 (Washington Supreme Court, 2010)
810 Properties v. Jump
141 Wash. App. 688 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 2007)
Responsible Urban Growth Group v. City of Kent
868 P.2d 861 (Washington Supreme Court, 1994)
Kirk v. Tomulty
831 P.2d 792 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1992)
Beebe v. Swerda
793 P.2d 442 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1990)
Foster v. Nehls
551 P.2d 768 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
468 P.2d 713, 2 Wash. App. 560, 1970 Wash. App. LEXIS 1161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahon-v-haas-washctapp-1970.