The Alaska Supreme Court has affirmed a lower court’s decision rejecting a man’s claims that he held a legal right—an easement—to use a driveway crossing his neighbor’s property for access to his home. Alex Koponen argued he had established either an easement by estoppel based on a decades-old oral agreement or a prescriptive easement gained through long-term use. However, the Supreme Court found insufficient evidence for both claims, particularly noting that the alleged use was not sufficiently visible to the property owners over time.
The case centers on a driveway connection between Koponen’s homestead and Lot 17 in Fairbanks, currently owned by Vsevolod Romanov and Maria Sanders (the Appellees). Koponen, who represented himself in the appeal, claimed that without this access, the placement of his house, built in 1979, would have been impossible given his need for vehicle access, particularly for fuel deliveries.
The Origins of the Dispute
Koponen’s claim stems from 1979 when his parents granted him permission to build a house on their homestead. At that time, the neighboring Lot 17 was owned by the Franks. Koponen testified that Lewis Frank gave him oral permission to extend the existing Frank driveway across Lot 17 to reach his new home. Koponen built his house, installed a fuel tank, and began using the driveway occasionally for driving into town and for fuel deliveries, though he generally accessed his home on foot via another route.
The use dynamic changed in 1982 when the Franks sold Lot 17 to Carol Gold. Koponen continued using the driveway until Gold confronted him, stating he had no right to cross her land. Following this, Koponen arranged for an alternative easement on a different lot (Lot 16) and reduced his use of the Lot 17 driveway to only infrequent fuel deliveries (every two or three years) to maintain neighborly relations.
The current owners, Romanov and Sanders, purchased Lot 17 in 2020. After noticing Koponen attempting to move an object on their property in 2021, they engaged in brief discussions with him about a potential lease, which went nowhere. In 2022, Romanov blocked the disputed access point with a railroad tie and a boulder, leading Koponen to file suit in 2023 seeking to restore his asserted driveway easement.
Failure to Prove Easement by Estoppel
Koponen first argued for an easement by estoppel, requiring proof of an oral grant followed by detrimental reliance. He pointed to the location of his house and driveway as evidence of his reliance on Lewis Frank’s alleged 1979 permission.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that Koponen’s testimony regarding the oral grant should likely have been admitted as a “verbal act” rather than inadmissible hearsay, as the statement itself was central to the legal rights being asserted.
However, the Court ultimately agreed with the superior court’s finding that Koponen failed to meet his burden of proof regarding the existence of the oral grant itself. The Court noted that while Koponen’s testimony suggested his building plans were influenced by the alleged agreement, this uncorroborated, self-serving testimony alone was insufficient to establish the required clear and convincing evidence of an oral grant. Therefore, the claim for an easement by estoppel failed.
Prescriptive Easement Requirements Not Met
Koponen alternatively claimed a prescriptive easement, which requires proving use that is continuous, hostile (acting as if one is the owner), and reasonably visible to the record owner for at least ten years.
The superior court had found that Koponen successfully demonstrated the first two elements: continuity and hostility (even if the use was infrequent, like fuel deliveries). However, the trial court ruled that Koponen failed on the third element: notoriety, or whether the use was “open and notorious.”
For a use to be notorious, the adverse user must show that a “duly alert owner would have known of the adverse presence.” The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence supporting this finding, which included photographs, testimony from current owners Romanov and Sanders, and testimony from previous owner Carol Gold.
The trial court noted that photographs showed the potential driveway area was “very camouflaged by tree coverage,” leading to the conclusion that a “reasonably diligent owner would not have known about this extended driveway.” Furthermore, Carol Gold testified that after confronting Koponen in 1984, she never saw unknown vehicles using the path, and her tenant, Gwendolyn Bryson, confirmed that a security camera installed in 2014 never captured unidentified vehicles using the driveway.
The Supreme Court found that the evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion that the use was not open and notorious. Romanov and Sanders testified they saw no indication of an established driveway upon purchasing the property. Koponen’s own testimony that he did not regularly maintain the area or interfere with the neighbors’ use further weakened his claim that his use was sufficiently adverse and visible to put the owners on notice.
Conclusion
Because Koponen failed to establish either an easement by estoppel or a prescriptive easement, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s final judgment, denying his request to restore access across Lot 17.