NH Supreme Court Clarifies Law Relating to Highways by Prescription

Public highways established by prescription are only those that have been used for public travel for 20 years prior to January 1, 1968. (See NH RSA 229:1.)  In Town of Dunbarton v. Guiney et al. (decided February 5, 2020), the New Hampshire Supreme Court clarified the nature of the proof needed to establish a highway by prescription. The trial court in that case found that a highway by prescription had been established; however, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that there had been insufficient proof as to the “adversity” of the public’s use of the way. 

The Supreme Court first cited the general law that to establish a highway by prescription it must be shown that the general public used the way continuously for a period of 20 years prior to 1968 and that the public use was adverse (i.e., without the owner’s permission). The primary evidence introduced to show the highway by prescription was maps that pre-dated 1968 by more than 20 years. The Court held that the maps, by themselves, were competent evidence to support an inference of continuous and uninterrupted public use but were not sufficient to support a finding that the public use was adverse to the owner over whose property the way traversed. 

The Court held that to meet the adversity requirement, the nature of the use must be such as to show that the owner knew, or ought to have known, that the right was being exercised, not in reliance upon the owner’s permission, but without regard to the owner’s consent. The only evidence introduced in that regard was that the Town had used the area in question to allow its plow trucks to turn around safely. The Court held that this was insufficient to put the owner on notice that the use was adverse and being made under a claim of right by the Town. The Court appeared to establish the standard as whether or not a reasonable person would understand the municipality to be making a claim of right to the property by its use of the way. 

Lessons learned from this recently decided case include: 

1. Maps predating 1968 are insufficient by themselves to meet the “adversity” requirement for establishing a highway by prescription; 
2. There must be some further indication of adversity, of a claim of right without the owner’s permission, such as stone walls or commercial enterprises along the road; and 
3. To establish the requisite adversity, the general standard is whether a reasonable owner would understand the public to be making a claim of right by its use of the way.

Regulating Tiny Homes

On January 30, the Joint Standing Committee on Transportation heard public testimony regarding LD 1981, An Act Regarding the Regulation of Tiny Homes. The concept draft bill proposes to define a “tiny house” and allow for the titling of a tiny house as a camp trailer or trailer.

This bill comes after the Maine State Bureau of Motor Vehicles ceased registering, assigning vehicle notification numbers, and titling tiny homes on wheels in June 2019, preventing tiny home buyers from securing financing from traditional lenders. Prior to June 2019, the Bureau of Motor Vehicles registered and titled tiny homes as camp trailers or trailers under Title 29-A. Owners could freely move their tiny houses as often as they wished. 

Currently, owners of tiny homes must obtain a one-time transit permit from the Secretary of State in order to move their homes. The Bureau of Motor Vehicles has taken the stance that tiny homes do not fall within the definition of a camp trailer or trailer, nor do they fall within the definition of manufactured housing. 

Tiny homes may present an environmentally friendly solution to the rising cost of housing and, for some, play into a desire to live a more minimalist, “off the grid” lifestyle. However, their ambiguous status under state law has traditionally made it difficult to say where they fall under municipal land use ordinances and building codes, and whether they should be taxed as real or personal property. If tiny homes with wheels can be titled and registered as vehicles, this may provide some clarity regarding both issues.