Analyze the case based on the following criteria:
Davis and Hansen own adjacent lots. When Davis bought his lot in 1984, the warranty deed contained an easement across the lot he was purchasing to the property now owned by Hansen. The easement in the deed to Davis from the seller, Rodgers, stated that the easement on the land “ shall be only for the benefit of Grantor [ Rodgers], his grantees, heirs and assigns.” Davis had been advised by a lawyer that the easement was not legally enforceable, so Davis put a garden on the easement area. Hansen bought his lot in 2006 and offered Davis $ 5,000 for an easement to access the property. Davis said no. Hansen then purchased the easement written in 1984 from Rodgers’ widow, who had inherited Rodger’s property. Once he had bought the easement, Hansen told Davis he was going to use his easement and he immediately cleared the easement on Davis’s property for a road and water and sewer lines. Davis then sued Hansen for trespass. Hansen counter-sued, seeking to prove ownership of the easement. The trial court ruled in favor of Davis, holding that Hansen had engaged in adverse possession of the easement by planting a garden over the ease-ment, which extinguished it, and ordered Hansen to pay $ 13,345 in “ restoration” damages. Hansen appealed.
What do you believe happened on appeal? Why? Hansen v. Davis, 220 P. 3d 911 ( Sup. Ct., Alaska, 2009)
