Wels v. Hippe

I join fully in the majority opinion with the understanding that its discussion of the content of the “open and notorious” element of a prescriptive easement, see 269 Or App at 796-97, is dictum. I write separately for two reasons: (1) to elaborate on why the notice concerns raised by the dissent do not provide a basis for reversing the trial court’s judgment under the circumstances present in this case; and (2) to highlight the fact that, in general, we no longer review de novo a trial court’s determination as to the existence of a prescriptive easement, and to emphasize the significance of…