Legal Question in Real Estate Law in Oregon

Most likely, yes. In order to prevent that, the public would need to have acquired a "prescriptive easement" by continuously using the trail for 10 years in a manner that is adverse to the owner. You would have to prove that use of the trail interfered with the owner's purpose for the land for a period of at least 10 years. The Oregon Court of Appeals addressed such a case in 2000, Petersen v. Crook County, and stated:

And in Beebe v. DeMarco, 157 Or.App. 176, 180-81, 968 P.2d 396 (1998), rev den 328 Or. 293, 977 P.2d 1174 (1999), we stated the governing rule as follows:

� �A use that is shown to be open and continuous for a 10 year period is presumptively adverse.� House v. Hager, 130 Or.App. 646, 651, 883 P.2d 261, rev den 320 Or. 492, 887 P.2d 793 (1994). That presumption may be rebutted by a showing that the plaintiffs �merely used an existing road in a way that did not interfere with defendants' use,� or by a showing that the use was permissive.�

The county makes much of evidence that intervenors and the public did not seek plaintiffs' permission before using the road. That observation overlooks the fact, however, that plaintiffs overcame any presumption of adverseness through other evidence. Peppermint Lane was not constructed by intervenors or the county. Its origin was not clearly established, but it is clear that it has existed for decades. Moreover, any public or private use of the road did not-until recently, if at all-interfere with plaintiffs' use of the road. The persuasive weight of the evidence showed that the condition of the disputed portion of the road, including its surface and grade characteristics, essentially was constant from the early 1970s until the volume of use increased in the mid 1990s. In other words, the use of the road by others did not impair or interfere with its use by plaintiffs or their predecessors. At most, the evidence showed that increased use of the road beginning in 1994 or 1995 became so vexing that plaintiffs eventually brought this action to curb it. Thus, even if public or private use became adverse in the mid-1990s, it did not continue for the requisite 10-year period so as to create prescriptive rights.