MORAN V. SIMS

MORANV. SIMS

Moranv. Sims

Moransv. Sim is an ideal example of property ownership rows that continueto occur frequently in the society. The case involved Sims who owneda piece of land where livestock was reared. Sim’s family had usedthe property for fifty years. However, the ownership rightsdocumentation was obtained in 1985 (Fink, 2007). To accesses theirproperty from the highway, his family used a drive way that ranacross the surrounding piece of land. In 1996, the Morans acquiredthe piece f land that that the drive way ran across. Furthermore, theacquired piece of land surrounded Sims property fully, thus he had noaccess. This prompted him to apply for the easement. However, the twoparties failed to agree as directed by the Board of Supervisors ofthe Smith County. The matter was there of referred to the court. Thecase was heard by the bench and a decision was made stating that theMoran qualified for a prescribed easement in spite of the drive wayacquisition by the Morans (Smith,2008). The decision was later up held by the appellant court.

However,the Morans were not willing to give the Sims an easement since theyhad not owned the piece land for more than ten years .This decisionwas reached at since the Morans had only acquired the piece of landin 1996 and they had not allowed the Sims to use the driveway for theprevious ten years. However, contrary to their understanding of thelaw the Sims deserved a prescriptive easement since they had used thedrive way for more than ten years without any violence or oppositionfrom the previous parties. Additionally, they had used the drive wayfor a further fifty years without any objection. They had also boughtgravel that was used to improve the drive way to access the property.As the witness in the case gave evidence to the bench since he wasthe one who had delivered the gravel (Korsgaard,2009).&nbsp.

Tosummarize the bench clearly stated that the Sims had the right to usethe drive way since they had used it for more than ten yearspreviously without any objection from any parties. Thus, it wasdeemed right that they had the permission to use it.

References

Fink,H. P. (2007).&nbspFederalcourts in the 21st century: Cases and materials.Newark, NJ: Lexisnexis Matthew Bender.

Korsgaard,C. M. (2009).&nbspSelf-constitution:Agency, identity, and integrity.Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

Smith,R. J. (2008).&nbspPropertylaw.Harlow: Longman.