LO VIENTO BLANCO, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company v. WOODBRIDGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., a Colorado nonprofit corporation ( 2021 )

<div data-spec-version="0.0.3dev" data-generated-on="2024-04-08">
<div class="generated-from-iceberg vlex-toc">
<link href="https://doc-stylesheets.vlex.com/ldml-xml.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"></link>
<div class="ldml-decision"><div class="ldml-decision"><div href="/vid/886171119" data-vids="886171119" class="ldml-header header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Header"><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-cite"><b class="ldml-bold">489 P.3d 735</b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-party"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-name">LO VIENTO BLANCO, LLC</span>, an <span class="ldml-role">Arizona limited liability company</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">v.</b><span class="ldml-party"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-name">WOODBRIDGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.</span>, a <span class="ldml-role">Colorado nonprofit corporation</span>, <span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></b></span></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold">Supreme Court <span class="ldml-cite">Case No. 20SC292</span> </b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><b class="ldml-bold"><span class="ldml-court">Supreme Court of Colorado</span>.</b></p><p class="ldml-metadata"><span class="ldml-date"><b class="ldml-bold">June 21, 2021</b></span></p></div><div class="ldml-counsel header ldml-header content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Counsel"><p data-paragraph-id="241" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="241" data-sentence-id="241" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Petitioner</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Azizpour Donnelly, LLC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Katayoun A. Donnelly Denver</span></span>, Colorado, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawfirm">Law Offices of James A. Knowlton</span>, LLC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">James A. Knowlton</span></span> Basalt, Colorado</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="403" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-2"><span data-paragraph-id="403" data-sentence-id="403" class="ldml-sentence">Attorneys for <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-role">Respondent</span></span>: <span class="ldml-lawfirm">Peck Feigenbaum PC</span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Heather J. Manolakas</span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-lawyer">Lucas Peck</span></span>, Basalt, Colorado</span></p></div><h2 class="ldml-opinionheading"><span data-paragraph-id="499" class="ldml-paragraph "><span class="ldml-judgepanel"><span data-paragraph-id="499" data-sentence-id="499" class="ldml-sentence">En Banc</span></span></span></h2><div class="ldml-opinion"><p data-paragraph-id="506" class="ldml-paragraph no-indent mt-4"><span class="ldml-opinionauthor content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Opinion (GABRIEL)"><span data-paragraph-id="506" data-sentence-id="506" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">JUSTICE <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-judge">GABRIEL</span></span> <span class="ldml-opiniontype">delivered <span class="ldml-entity">the Opinion of <span class="ldml-entity">the Court</span></span></span></span>.</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="557" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="557" data-sentence-id="557" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_557"><span class="ldml-cite">¶1</span></a></span> It appears long settled that to obtain title to property by adverse possession, <span class="ldml-entity">claimants</span> must prove, among other things, that their possession was hostile.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="557" data-sentence-id="717" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> have said that <span class="ldml-entity">claimants</span> asserting title by adverse possession must claim exclusive ownership and that an acknowledgment of the owner's title during the claimed adverse <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="489" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="738" data-id="pagenumber_902"></span> possession period defeats the requisite hostility.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="953" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="953" data-sentence-id="953" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_953"><span class="ldml-cite">¶2</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted certiorari to decide a narrow question, namely, whether the same principles apply in the context of a prescriptive easement, i.e., whether <span class="ldml-entity">a claimant</span>'s acknowledgment of the owner's title during the asserted prescriptive period interrupts the prescriptive use, thereby defeating the claimed easement.<a href="#note-fr1" class="ldml-noteanchor" id="note-ref-fr1">1</a></span> </p><p data-paragraph-id="1282" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="1282" data-sentence-id="1283" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1283"><span class="ldml-cite">¶3</span></a></span> Like the division below, and for much the same reasons, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> now conclude that under Colorado law, <span class="ldml-entity">a claimant</span>'s acknowledgment or recognition of the owner's title during <span class="ldml-entity">the claimant</span>'s asserted prescriptive easement period does not interrupt the prescriptive use or undermine <span class="ldml-entity">the claimant</span>'s adverse use.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="1587" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1587" data-sentence-id="1587" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1587"><span class="ldml-cite">¶4</span></a></span> Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> affirm the division's judgment.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-ordinal_start="1" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="1" data-value="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-specifier="I" data-types="background" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-content-heading-label="I. Facts and Procedural History" data-confidences="very_high" id="heading_1637" data-id="heading_1637"><span data-paragraph-id="1637" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="1637" data-sentence-id="1637" class="ldml-sentence">I.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1637" data-sentence-id="1640" class="ldml-sentence">Facts and Procedural History</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="1668" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="1668" data-sentence-id="1668" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_1668"><span class="ldml-cite">¶5</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">This case</span> involves an approximately half-acre piece of property that <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco, LLC</span> owns in <span class="ldml-entity">Snowmass Village</span>, Colorado <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(the <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"disputed parcel"</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1668" data-sentence-id="1822" class="ldml-sentence">In the mid-<span class="ldml-entity">1970</span>'s, <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-entity">L.R. Foy</span> Construction Co.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Foy Construction"</span>)</span>, of which <span class="ldml-entity">Lyle Foy</span> was the sole owner and president, built or subcontracted the construction of several condominium buildings on a larger parcel that included the disputed parcel.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="1668" data-sentence-id="2068" class="ldml-sentence">The disputed parcel is depicted in the following diagram:</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="2125" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="2125" data-sentence-id="2125" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_2125"><span class="ldml-cite">¶6</span></a></span> Thereafter, in <span class="ldml-entity">1975</span>, Foy Construction conveyed most of the larger parcel, but not the disputed parcel, to what is now the <span class="ldml-entity">Woodbridge Condominium Association</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2125" data-sentence-id="2286" class="ldml-sentence">From that point forward, and continuing through at least <span class="ldml-entity">2012</span>, Woodbridge maintained, used, <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="489" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="739" data-id="pagenumber_2378"></span> and improved the disputed parcel in a number of ways.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="2125" data-sentence-id="2433" class="ldml-sentence">For example:</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_2445" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="2445" class="ldml-sentence">• Woodbridge owners and tenants skied across the disputed parcel to access a pedestrian bridge that led to a ski area.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_2563" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="2563" class="ldml-sentence">• Woodbridge mowed, watered, fertilized, and raked sod that had been installed on the disputed parcel by Foy Construction.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_2685" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="2685" class="ldml-sentence">• Residents and guests used a gravel road that runs along the southern and western sides of the disputed parcel to drive their cars up to one of the condominium buildings <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Building 31)</span> and to park there.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_2888" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="2888" class="ldml-sentence">• Woodbridge installed gravel on this road to enhance the condominium complex's visual appearance.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_2986" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="2986" class="ldml-sentence">• Woodbridge's maintenance personnel used the gravel road to service Building 31.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3067" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3067" class="ldml-sentence">• In <span class="ldml-entity">1992</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">1995</span>, Woodbridge planted and transplanted some pine trees on the disputed parcel.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3162" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3162" class="ldml-sentence">• Also in <span class="ldml-entity">1995</span>, Woodbridge used the disputed parcel as a staging area for a major construction project and built a berm just north of the gravel road and planted additional trees there.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3347" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3347" class="ldml-sentence">• In <span class="ldml-entity">1997</span>, Woodbridge installed a picnic table and a split rail fence on part of the disputed parcel, and from that point forward, Woodbridge weeded and mowed the area around the table and fence.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3542" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3542" class="ldml-sentence">• In the late <span class="ldml-entity">1990</span>s, Woodbridge planted some aspen trees on the disputed parcel, some of which it would move in <span class="ldml-entity">2004</span>.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3659" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3659" class="ldml-sentence">• In the early <span class="ldml-entity">2000</span>s, Woodbridge installed a chain across a portion of the gravel road so that tenants would not use that road, although maintenance workers could continue to do so.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_3840" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="3840" class="ldml-sentence">• In <span class="ldml-entity">2004</span>, Woodbridge installed signs in the area of the chained portion of the gravel road reading, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Woodbridge Condominiums,"</span> and also installed electricity to allow it to light the signs, as well as landscaping in the area of the signs.</span></blockquote><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_4079" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="4079" class="ldml-sentence">• And also in <span class="ldml-entity">2004</span>, Woodbridge installed an in-ground sprinkler system to water the lawn that covers the majority of the disputed parcel.</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="4216" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4216" data-sentence-id="4216" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4216"><span class="ldml-cite">¶7</span></a></span> In short, beginning in <span class="ldml-entity">1975</span> and for many years thereafter, Woodbridge maintained and used the disputed parcel as if it owned that parcel.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="4356" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="4356" data-sentence-id="4356" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_4356"><span class="ldml-cite">¶8</span></a></span> In the course of the above-described activities, Woodbridge and Foy exchanged correspondence that is pertinent to the issues now before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4356" data-sentence-id="4499" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, in <span class="ldml-entity">March 1991</span>, Woodbridge wrote to Foy asking for permission to plant trees and shrubs on the disputed parcel.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4356" data-sentence-id="4624" class="ldml-sentence">Foy responded several months later that the owners of the disputed parcel had no objection to Woodbridge's doing so <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"as long as you <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[i.e., Woodbridge]</span> have no claim for the property, trees, shrubs, etc. for the improvements."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="4356" data-sentence-id="4850" class="ldml-sentence">Foy also noted several other conditions, and <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> stated that if Woodbridge accepted those conditions, it might want to <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"write it up in some form"</span> to send for the disputed parcel's owners' approval.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="4356" data-sentence-id="5047" class="ldml-sentence">Woodbridge did not respond or agree to these conditions, even after Foy wrote another letter in <span class="ldml-entity">November 1991</span> noting that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> had not received a response to his prior <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"proposal."</span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="5224" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="5224" data-sentence-id="5224" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_5224"><span class="ldml-cite">¶9</span></a></span> Thereafter, in <span class="ldml-entity">June 1992</span>, Woodbridge again wrote to Foy, mentioned the prior correspondence, and this time offered to purchase the disputed parcel for $10,000.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5224" data-sentence-id="5387" class="ldml-sentence">As <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> would later find, this letter amounted to an indirect rejection of Foy's prior proposal to allow Woodbridge to plant trees and shrubs on the disputed parcel, subject to certain conditions.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5224" data-sentence-id="5595" class="ldml-sentence">Neither Foy nor the construction entity that <span class="ldml-entity">he</span> controlled, which then owned the disputed parcel, ever responded to Woodbridge's offer letter, and from then on, Woodbridge continued to maintain and make improvements on the disputed parcel as described above, treating that parcel as if Woodbridge owned it.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="5224" data-sentence-id="5902" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, between <span class="ldml-entity">1975</span> and <span class="ldml-entity">2011</span>, no record owner of the disputed parcel appears to have visited, inspected, inquired about, or used the disputed parcel.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6054" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6054" data-sentence-id="6054" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6054"><span class="ldml-cite">¶10</span></a></span> In <span class="ldml-entity">2010</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span> acquired the disputed parcel, and it subsequently presented plans to Woodbridge to build on that parcel.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6054" data-sentence-id="6189" class="ldml-sentence">Woodbridge objected to these plans, advised <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span> that it owned the <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="489" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="740" data-id="pagenumber_6268"></span> disputed parcel by adverse possession, and then, in <span class="ldml-entity">2012</span>, filed the present action to quiet title to that parcel in its favor <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(on an adverse possession theory)</span> or, in the alternative, to confirm that it had established a prescriptive easement over that parcel.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6054" data-sentence-id="6530" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span> responded by asserting a number of counterclaims, including its own claim to quiet title to the disputed parcel in its favor.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6054" data-sentence-id="6673" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The case</span> proceeded to a bench trial, and <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> ultimately found that Woodbridge had, in fact, acquired title by adverse possession.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="6814" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="6814" data-sentence-id="6814" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_6814"><span class="ldml-cite">¶11</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span> then appealed, and in an unpublished, unanimous decision, a division of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> reversed, concluding that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> had erred in finding that Woodbridge had acquired title to the disputed parcel by adverse possession.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6814" data-sentence-id="7072" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:woodbridgecondoassnvlovientoblanco,llc,no15ca596" data-prop-ids="sentence_7072"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Woodbridge Condo. Ass'n v. Lo Viento Blanco, LLC</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">No. 15CA596</span></a></span>, slip op. <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7072"><span class="ldml-cite">at 1, 6-7, 9-10</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">2016 WL 2958766</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">May 19, 2016</span>)</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6814" data-sentence-id="7193" class="ldml-sentence">As pertinent here, the division reasoned that Woodbridge's <span class="ldml-entity">1992</span> letter to Foy offering to purchase the disputed parcel was fatal to Woodbridge's adverse possession claim because that letter had interrupted the continuity of Woodbridge's adverse use prior to the eighteen year vesting point and rebutted the presumption of adversity raised by Woodbridge's possession.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6814" data-sentence-id="7560" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7193"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 6-7</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6814" data-sentence-id="7572" class="ldml-sentence">The division thus reversed the order quieting title to the disputed parcel in Woodbridge's favor but remanded <span class="ldml-entity">the case</span> to <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> to consider Woodbridge's prescriptive easement claim.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="6814" data-sentence-id="7764" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7572"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 11</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="7774" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="7774" data-sentence-id="7774" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_7774"><span class="ldml-cite">¶12</span></a></span> On remand, <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> stipulated that <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> could rule based on the underlying record from the previous bench trial and without any additional evidentiary proceedings.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="7774" data-sentence-id="7957" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">The court</span> then found that Woodbridge had proved its right to a prescriptive easement, and <span class="ldml-entity">the court</span> subsequently determined the scope of that easement.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="8108" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="8108" data-sentence-id="8108" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8108"><span class="ldml-cite">¶13</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span> appealed again, and in a unanimous, published decision, a division of <span class="ldml-entity">the court of appeals</span> concluded, as pertinent here, that Woodbridge had proved the requisite elements to establish a prescriptive easement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8108" data-sentence-id="8338" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:woodbridgecondoassn,incvlovientoblanco,llc,2020coa34" data-prop-ids="sentence_8108"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Woodbridge Condo. Ass'n v. Lo Viento Blanco, LLC</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2020 COA 34</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8108"><span class="ldml-cite">¶¶ 15-34</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––"><span class="ldml-cite">––– P.3d ––––</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8108" data-sentence-id="8426" class="ldml-sentence">In so ruling, the division reasoned that although Woodbridge recognized that it did not hold title, no evidence indicated that it had acted in subordination to the owner's title.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8108" data-sentence-id="8605" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––" data-prop-ids="sentence_8605"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_8605"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 30</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8108" data-sentence-id="8618" class="ldml-sentence">To the contrary, the evidence showed that Woodbridge had consistently treated the disputed parcel as its own and that it did so without express or implied authorization, which, the division opined, was all that was required to establish the requisite adversity for purposes of a prescriptive easement claim.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8108" data-sentence-id="8926" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––" data-prop-ids="sentence_8618"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶¶ 21-22, 30</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8108" data-sentence-id="8947" class="ldml-sentence">The division was not persuaded otherwise by Foy's <span class="ldml-entity">1991</span> letter because, the division noted, the permission offered in that letter was conditional and Woodbridge never agreed to any of the conditions set forth therein.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8108" data-sentence-id="9164" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––" data-prop-ids="sentence_8947"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">at ¶ 34</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8108" data-sentence-id="9177" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span> had not rebutted the presumption of adverse use that the law afforded Woodbridge.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="8108" data-sentence-id="9282" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:–––p3d––––" data-prop-ids="sentence_9177"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9285" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9285" data-sentence-id="9285" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9285"><span class="ldml-cite">¶14</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span> then petitioned for certiorari, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted its petition.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-ordinal_start="2" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="2" data-value="II. Analysis" data-specifier="II" data-types="analysis" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-content-heading-label="II. Analysis" data-confidences="very_high" id="heading_9366" data-id="heading_9366"><span data-paragraph-id="9366" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="9366" data-sentence-id="9366" class="ldml-sentence">II.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9366" data-sentence-id="9370" class="ldml-sentence">Analysis</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="9378" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="9378" data-sentence-id="9378" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9378"><span class="ldml-cite">¶15</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> begin by setting forth the applicable standard of review.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9378" data-sentence-id="9443" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> then address the principles of law governing prescriptive easements, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> apply those principles to <span class="ldml-entity">the facts before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span></span>.</span></p><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="1" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="1" data-value="A. Standard of Review" data-specifier="A" data-types="standardofreview" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-content-heading-label="A. Standard of Review" data-confidences="very_high" id="heading_9568" data-id="heading_9568"><span data-paragraph-id="9568" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="9568" data-sentence-id="9568" class="ldml-sentence">A.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9568" data-sentence-id="9571" class="ldml-sentence">Standard of Review</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="9589" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="9589" data-sentence-id="9590" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9590"><span class="ldml-cite">¶16</span></a></span> The question of what elements are required to establish a prescriptive easement–and what factors may defeat such an easement–is a matter of law that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> review de novo.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9589" data-sentence-id="9762" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888987554" data-vids="888987554" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9590"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Matoush v. Lovingood</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">177 P.3d 1262, 1269</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2008</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="9817" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="9817" data-sentence-id="9818" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9818"><span class="ldml-cite">¶17</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span>, however, review <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span>'s findings of historical fact, including whether <span class="ldml-entity">a claimant</span>'s use of a property was adverse to the owner's property interest, for clear error.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9817" data-sentence-id="9999" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:mdcwood,incvmortimerno93sc67866p2d1380jan24,1994" data-prop-ids="sentence_9818"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">M.D.C./Wood, Inc. v. Mortimer</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">866 P.2d 1380, 1383-84</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1994</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889790515" data-vids="889790515" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_10125,sentence_9818"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Smith v. Hayden</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">772 P.2d 47, 56</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1989</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[W]</span>hether possession is hostile or adverse is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887990223" data-vids="887990223" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9818"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">L.R. Smith Invs., LLC v. Butler</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">2014 COA 170</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_9818"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 25</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887990223" data-vids="887990223" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_10305"><span class="ldml-cite">378 P.3d 743, 748</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-embeddedsentence"><span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> that whether a use is permissive or adverse is a question of fact that is within the factfinder's province</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9817" data-sentence-id="10421" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> will not overturn <span class="ldml-entity">a trial court</span>'s factual findings unless <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are unsupported by the <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="489" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="741" data-id="pagenumber_10523"></span> record.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="9817" data-sentence-id="10532" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889790515" data-vids="889790515" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_10562,sentence_10421"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Hayden</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">772 P.2d at 56</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"The findings of the trier of fact must be accepted on review, unless <span class="ldml-entity">they</span> are so lacking in support in the record as to be clearly erroneous."</span></span>)</span></span></span><span data-paragraph-id="9817" data-sentence-id="10706" class="ldml-sentence">.</span></p></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth2" data-ordinal_start="2" data-ordinal_end="2" data-value="B. Prescriptive Easement" data-specifier="B" data-parsed="true" data-format="upper_case_letters" data-content-heading-label="B. Prescriptive Easement" id="heading_10707" data-id="heading_10707"><span data-paragraph-id="10707" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="10707" data-sentence-id="10707" class="ldml-sentence">B.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10707" data-sentence-id="10710" class="ldml-sentence">Prescriptive Easement</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="10731" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="10731" data-sentence-id="10732" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10732"><span class="ldml-cite">¶18</span></a></span> To obtain title to property by adverse possession, <span class="ldml-entity">the claimant</span> <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"must prove that his possession of the disputed parcel was actual, adverse, hostile, under claim of right, exclusive and uninterrupted for the statutory period."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="10731" data-sentence-id="10962" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889790515" data-vids="889790515" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10732"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i> at 52</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10731" data-sentence-id="10973" class="ldml-sentence">In Colorado, the statutory period is eighteen years.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="10731" data-sentence-id="11026" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_10973"><span class="ldml-cite">§ 38-41-101<span class="ldml-headnoteanchor"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span></span>, C.R.S.</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">2020</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="11056" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11056" data-sentence-id="11057" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11057"><span class="ldml-cite">¶19</span></a></span> For adverse possession purposes, to establish the requisite <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"hostility,"</span> <span class="ldml-entity">the claimant</span> must assert exclusive ownership of the occupied parcel.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11056" data-sentence-id="11203" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889790515" data-vids="889790515" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11057"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Hayden</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">772 P.2d at 56</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11056" data-sentence-id="11227" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, if one claiming title by adverse possession of another's property acknowledges the other's title during the adverse possession period, then this will generally interrupt the claimed prescriptive use and thus defeat the requisite hostility and the claim of title by adverse possession.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11056" data-sentence-id="11525" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887606819" data-vids="887606819" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11227"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Trask v. Nozisko</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">134 P.3d 544, 553</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2006</span>)</span></a></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="11579" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="11579" data-sentence-id="11580" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11580"><span class="ldml-cite">¶20</span></a></span> The elements of a prescriptive easement claim are not the same as those comprising an adverse possession claim.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="11579" data-sentence-id="11696" class="ldml-sentence">In Colorado, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[a]</span>n easement by prescription is established when the prescriptive use is: 1) open or notorious, 2) continued without effective interruption for the prescriptive period, and 3) the use was either a) adverse or b) pursuant to an attempted, but ineffective grant."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="11579" data-sentence-id="11973" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889052948" data-vids="889052948" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11696"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Lobato v. Taylor</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">71 P.3d 938, 950</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2002</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_11696"><span class="ldml-refname">Restatement <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Third)</span> of Property <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Servitudes)</span></span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 2.17</span></a></span></span> cmt. j <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2000</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> that a servitude can be acquired by prescription only if the adverse use is not interrupted prior to the end of the prescriptive period)</span>.</span></p><div class="ldml-embeddeddocument"><p data-paragraph-id="12243" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12243" data-sentence-id="12244" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12244"><span class="ldml-cite">¶21</span></a></span> Thus, unlike a claim of title by adverse possession, a claim to a prescriptive easement does not require a showing of <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"hostility"</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., a claim to exclusive ownership)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="12243" data-sentence-id="12418" class="ldml-sentence">Rather, in the context of prescriptive easements, an adverse use</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_12482" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="12482" class="ldml-sentence">is a use made without the consent of the landowner, or holder of the property interest used, and without other authorization.</span> <span data-sentence-id="12608" class="ldml-sentence">Adverse uses create causes of action in tort for interference with property rights.</span> <span data-sentence-id="12692" class="ldml-sentence">The causes of action are usually actions for trespass, nuisance, or waste.</span> <span data-sentence-id="12767" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-parenthetical">[Such]</span> uses are adverse or hostile to the property owner in the ordinary sense of the words.</span></blockquote></div><p data-paragraph-id="12859" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="12859" data-sentence-id="12859" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Restatement <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Third)</span> of Property <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Servitudes)</span></span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 2.16</span></a></span> cmt. b <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity">2000</span>)</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="12925" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="12925" data-sentence-id="12926" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_12926"><span class="ldml-cite">¶22</span></a></span> Stated otherwise, <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>o be adverse, ... a use must create a cause of action for interference with an interest in property like trespass, nuisance, or interference with a servitude benefit.</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">To be adverse, the use must be made without authority and without permission of the property owner."</span></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="12925" data-sentence-id="13220" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13220"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span> at cmt. f<span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/888987554" data-vids="888987554" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13220"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Matoush</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">177 P.3d at 1270</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"When an easement is created by adverse possession, <span class="ldml-entity">a party</span> uses land that is not in his or her possession, and does so in a way that is adverse to the property rights of <span class="ldml-entity">the party</span> who possesses the land."</span></span>)</span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Restatement <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Third)</span> of Property <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Servitudes)</span></span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 2.16</span></a></span></span> cmt. a <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> that prescription operates when, among other things, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"a person begins using property without the consent or authority of the owner and acquires a servitude if the use continues for the prescriptive period and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">[the use is open or notorious and continued without effective interruption for the prescriptive period]</span>"</span>)</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="13862" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="13862" data-sentence-id="13863" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_13863"><span class="ldml-cite">¶23</span></a></span> In light of the foregoing, <span class="ldml-entity">a claimant</span> seeking to establish a prescriptive easement need not show that it asserted exclusive ownership of the property during the prescriptive period.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="13862" data-sentence-id="14049" class="ldml-sentence">Rather, such <span class="ldml-entity">a claimant</span> must show that its use was without permission or otherwise unauthorized and that it interfered with the owner's property interests.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="14204" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="14204" data-sentence-id="14205" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14205"><span class="ldml-cite">¶24 A</span></a></span> prescriptive easement <span class="ldml-entity">claimant</span> that shows that it has possessed the easement for more than the statutory period is entitled to a presumption of adverse use.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14204" data-sentence-id="14368" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892056812" data-vids="892056812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14205"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Trueblood v. Pierce</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">116 Colo. 221</span>, <span class="ldml-cite">179 P.2d 671, 677</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-date">1947</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14205"><span class="ldml-refname">Restatement <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Third)</span> of Property <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Servitudes)</span></span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 2.16</span></a></span></span> cmt. g <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"The majority of American states apply a presumption that an unexplained, open or notorious <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="489" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="742" data-id="pagenumber_14592"></span> use of land, continued for the prescriptive period, is adverse, or made pursuant to an implied servitude."</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14204" data-sentence-id="14702" class="ldml-sentence">This presumption can be rebutted, however, if the landowner shows that <span class="ldml-entity">the claimant</span>'s use was permissive at any time during the statutory period.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="14204" data-sentence-id="14848" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887990223" data-vids="887990223" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14702"><span class="ldml-refname">L.R. Smith Invs.</span></a></span>,</i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_14702"><span class="ldml-cite">¶ 15</span></a></span></span>, <span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887990223" data-vids="887990223" class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-cite">378 P.3d at 747</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">see also</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Restatement <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Third)</span> of Property <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Servitudes)</span></span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 2.16</span></a></span></span> cmt. f <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> that uses made pursuant to licenses are not adverse and that when a property owner gives permission to use property, the law implies that a license was intended)</span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="15133" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="15133" data-sentence-id="15134" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15134"><span class="ldml-cite">¶25</span></a></span> Similarly, a landowner can rebut the presumption of adverse use by showing that <span class="ldml-entity">the claimant</span>'s use was made in subordination to the property owner.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15133" data-sentence-id="15286" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-signal"><i class="ldml-italics">See</i></span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15134"><span class="ldml-refname">Restatement <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Third)</span> of Property <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Servitudes)</span></span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 2.16</span></a></span></span> cmt. f <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Uses made in subordination to the property owner are not adverse, even if the property owner has not given permission, and the use is not otherwise authorized."</span>)</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15133" data-sentence-id="15514" class="ldml-sentence">The mere recognition of the landowner's title, however, is not equivalent to subordination to that title.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15133" data-sentence-id="15620" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15514"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">Id.</i></span></a></span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15133" data-sentence-id="15624" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-quotation quote">"Subordination requires that the user act with authorization, express or implied, from the landowner, or under a claim that is derivative from the landowner's title."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15133" data-sentence-id="15791" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15624"><span class="ldml-cite">Id.</span></a></span><span class="ldml-referenceseparator">;</span> <span class="ldml-signal">see also</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/889250137" data-vids="889250137" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="embeddedsentence_15924,sentence_15624"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Mount Emmons Mining Co. v. Town of Crested Butte</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">40 P.3d 1255, 1258</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo.</span> <span class="ldml-date">2002</span>)</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-relatingauthority">noting</span> that <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"subordination"</span> is the <span class="ldml-quotation quote"><span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">"act</span> <span class="ldml-embeddedsentence">or process by which a person's rights or claims are ranked below those of others"</span></span> and <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"is essentially a matter of status between <span class="ldml-entity">parties</span>"</span>)</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(quoting <i class="ldml-italics">Subordination,</i> Black's Law Dictionary <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_15624"><span class="ldml-cite">7th ed. 1999</span></a></span>)</span>)</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="15133" data-sentence-id="16132" class="ldml-sentence">Thus, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"<span class="ldml-parenthetical">[t]</span>he fact that the user tried unsuccessfully to purchase a servitude from the landowner does not establish that his subsequent use was subordinate to the landowner's title."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="15133" data-sentence-id="16314" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference"><span class="ldml-refname">Restatement <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Third)</span> of Property <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(Servitudes)</span></span> <span class="ldml-cite">§ 2.16</span></a></span> cmt. f.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="16373" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="16373" data-sentence-id="16373" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16373"><span class="ldml-cite">¶26</span></a></span> If the landowner does not overcome the presumption of adverse use and <span class="ldml-entity">the claimant</span> establishes all of the other elements for a prescriptive easement noted above, then <span class="ldml-entity">the claimant</span> will be deemed to have established the right to that prescriptive easement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16373" data-sentence-id="16633" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/892056812" data-vids="892056812" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16373"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Trueblood</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">179 P.2d at 677</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="16666" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="16666" data-sentence-id="16666" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_16666"><span class="ldml-cite">¶27</span></a></span> With these principles of law in mind, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> turn to <span class="ldml-entity">the facts of <span class="ldml-entity">this case</span></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16666" data-sentence-id="16743" class="ldml-sentence">Here, <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span> contends that it rebutted the presumption of adverse use by showing that, during the prescriptive period, Woodbridge <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(1)</span> sought permission in <span class="ldml-entity">1991</span> to landscape the property at issue; <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(2)</span> sought to purchase the property in <span class="ldml-entity">1992</span>; and <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(3)</span> acted in subordination to <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span>'s title by allegedly continuing the use that <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span>'s predecessors in interest had authorized.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="16666" data-sentence-id="17150" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> are unpersuaded by any of these contentions, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> address them in turn.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="17226" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="17226" data-sentence-id="17227" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17227"><span class="ldml-cite">¶28</span></a></span> First, with respect to <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span>'s assertion that Woodbridge's <span class="ldml-entity">request for permission</span> to landscape interrupted the prescriptive period, <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span> perceives as irrelevant the facts that Foy responded by stating that it would give permission if Woodbridge would agree to certain conditions <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(including relinquishing any claim to rights in the easement)</span> and that Woodbridge did not accept those conditions and continued using the property as its own.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17226" data-sentence-id="17692" class="ldml-sentence">This, however, is a nonpermissive use, as <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> found.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17226" data-sentence-id="17757" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, on <span class="ldml-entity">the facts presented</span> here, the mere fact that Woodbridge sought permission <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(which it did not ultimately receive)</span> to landscape the disputed parcel did not interrupt its adverse <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(i.e., nonpermissive)</span> use.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="17974" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="17974" data-sentence-id="17975" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_17975"><span class="ldml-cite">¶29</span></a></span> Second, for the reasons set forth above, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> disagree that Woodbridge's offer to purchase the disputed parcel cut off Woodbridge's prescriptive use.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17974" data-sentence-id="18127" class="ldml-sentence">Although such an offer might have done so were the issue before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span> a claim to title by adverse possession <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(because it would cut off the requisite hostility)</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">a claimant</span> need not show exclusive ownership in the context of a prescriptive easement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="17974" data-sentence-id="18373" class="ldml-sentence">And this makes logical sense: <span class="ldml-entity">a claimant</span> seeking an easement does not necessarily disagree that the purported servient landowner holds title to the property.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="18530" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="18530" data-sentence-id="18530" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18530"><span class="ldml-cite">¶30</span></a></span> To the extent that <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span> relies on <span class="ldml-entity"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887606819" data-vids="887606819" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18530"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Trask</i></span> , <span class="ldml-cite">134 P.3d at 553</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-referenceseparator">and</span> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:pagelvreymanno79ca0445628p2d166april2,1981" data-prop-ids="sentence_18530"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Pagel v. Reyman</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">628 P.2d 166</span> <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(<span class="ldml-court">Colo. App.</span> <span class="ldml-date">1981</span>)</span></a></span></span></span>, to argue to the contrary, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> are unpersuaded.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18530" data-sentence-id="18704" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity">We</span> acknowledge that the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887606819" data-vids="887606819" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18704"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Trask</i></span></a></span> division said, <span class="ldml-quotation quote">"In general, when an adverse occupier acknowledges or recognizes the title of the owner during the occupant's claimed prescriptive period, the occupant interrupts the prescriptive use."</span></span> <span data-paragraph-id="18530" data-sentence-id="18935" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887606819" data-vids="887606819" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_18704"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Trask</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">134 P.3d at 553</span></a></span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18530" data-sentence-id="18959" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-pagenumber" data-vol="489" data-rep="P.3d" data-page_type="bracketed_cite" data-val="743" data-id="pagenumber_18962"></span> so stating, however, the division did not appear to recognize the above-described distinction between obtaining title by adverse possession and obtaining an easement by prescription.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18530" data-sentence-id="19146" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, the <span class="ldml-entity"><a href="/vid/887606819" data-vids="887606819" class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19146"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Trask</i></span></a></span> division cited <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:pagelvreymanno79ca0445628p2d166april2,1981" data-prop-ids="sentence_19146"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Pagel</i></span></a></span> in support of its above-quoted statement, but <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:pagelvreymanno79ca0445628p2d166april2,1981" data-prop-ids="sentence_19146"><span class="ldml-refname"><i class="ldml-italics">Pagel</i></span></a></span> does not support that <span class="ldml-entity">proposition</span>.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18530" data-sentence-id="19274" class="ldml-sentence">In <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:pagelvreymanno79ca0445628p2d166april2,1981" data-prop-ids="sentence_19274"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-refname">Pagel</span>,</i> <span class="ldml-cite">628 P.2d at 168</span></a></span>, <span class="ldml-entity">the parties</span> had entered into a written agreement by which <span class="ldml-entity">the party</span> claiming a prescriptive easement obtained the right to use the easement at issue.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18530" data-sentence-id="19451" class="ldml-sentence">For the reasons set forth above, this express permission during the prescriptive period interrupted the requisite adverse use.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="18530" data-sentence-id="19578" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-referencechain"><i class="ldml-italics"><span class="ldml-signal">See</span> </i> <span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-refglobal="case:pagelvreymanno79ca0445628p2d166april2,1981" data-prop-ids="sentence_19451"><span class="ldml-cite"><i class="ldml-italics">id.</i> at 168-69</span></a></span></span>.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="19597" class="ldml-paragraph "> <span data-paragraph-id="19597" data-sentence-id="19598" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_19598"><span class="ldml-cite">¶31</span></a></span> Finally, to the extent that <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span>'s argument relies on a claim of subordination to its title based on either permissive use or Woodbridge's prior offer to purchase the property, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> disagree.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19597" data-sentence-id="19804" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, as <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span> found, at no time was Woodbridge's use permissive.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19597" data-sentence-id="19888" class="ldml-sentence">Moreover, notwithstanding <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span>'s argument to the contrary, as discussed above, <span class="ldml-entity">a claimant</span>'s unsuccessful offer to purchase a servitude from the landowner <span class="ldml-parenthetical">(here, the disputed parcel)</span> does not establish that its subsequent use was subordinate to the owner's title.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="19597" data-sentence-id="20163" class="ldml-sentence">And to the extent that <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span> is asserting subordination to its title based on the alleged continuing use that <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span>'s predecessors had authorized, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> perceive nothing in the record to support the purported prior authorization, and <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span> cites no such record evidence.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="20463" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="20463" data-sentence-id="20463" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20463"><span class="ldml-cite">¶32</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> thus conclude that <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span> has not rebutted Woodbridge's presumption of adverse use, and Woodbridge has proved the remaining elements necessary to establish a prescriptive easement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20463" data-sentence-id="20661" class="ldml-sentence">To the extent that <span class="ldml-entity">Lo Viento Blanco</span> attempts to raise additional issues before <span class="ldml-entity">us</span>, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> note that <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> did not grant certiorari on any of those issues, and <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> decline to consider them.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-section"><section class="ldml-heading content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-ordinal_start="3" data-parsed="true" data-ordinal_end="3" data-value="III. Conclusion" data-specifier="III" data-types="conclusion" data-format="upper_case_roman_numeral" data-content-heading-label="III. Conclusion" data-confidences="very_high" id="heading_20841" data-id="heading_20841"><span data-paragraph-id="20841" class="ldml-paragraph "><b class="ldml-bold"><span data-paragraph-id="20841" data-sentence-id="20841" class="ldml-sentence">III.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20841" data-sentence-id="20846" class="ldml-sentence">Conclusion</span></b></span></section><p data-paragraph-id="20856" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="20856" data-sentence-id="20856" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_20856"><span class="ldml-cite">¶33</span></a></span> Under Colorado law, <span class="ldml-entity">a claimant</span>'s acknowledgment or recognition of the owner's title during <span class="ldml-entity">the claimant</span>'s prescriptive period does not interrupt that prescriptive use or defeat the presumption that the use was adverse for purposes of establishing a prescriptive easement.</span> <span data-paragraph-id="20856" data-sentence-id="21132" class="ldml-sentence">Accordingly, and because Woodbridge has proved all of the other elements necessary to establish a prescriptive easement, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> conclude that the division below correctly affirmed <span class="ldml-entity">the trial court</span>'s finding of a prescriptive easement here.</span></p><p data-paragraph-id="21366" class="ldml-paragraph "><span data-paragraph-id="21366" data-sentence-id="21366" class="ldml-sentence"><span class="ldml-entity"><a class="ldml-reference" data-prop-ids="sentence_21366"><span class="ldml-cite">¶34</span></a></span> <span class="ldml-entity">We</span> therefore affirm the division's judgment.</span></p></div></div><div class="ldml-notes content__heading content__heading--depth1" data-content-heading-label="Footnotes"><div class="ldml-note ldml-note"><p data-paragraph-id="21414" class="ldml-paragraph "><sup class="ldml-superscript"></sup><a href="#note-ref-fr1" class="ldml-notemarker" id="note-fr1">1</a> <span data-paragraph-id="21414" data-sentence-id="21415" class="ldml-sentence">Specifically, <span class="ldml-entity">we</span> granted certiorari to review the following issue:</span></p><blockquote data-paragraph-id="b_21481" class="ldml-blockquote"><span data-sentence-id="21481" class="ldml-sentence">Whether, under Colorado law, an adverse occupier's acknowledgment or recognition of the owner's title during the occupant's claimed prescriptive period interrupts the prescriptive use and defeats the presumption that any use was adverse.</span></blockquote></div></div></div></div>
</div>
</div>