In Martin V

In Martin v. Bicknell , the court held that

A) the parties should have resolved the dispute over the use of the adjoining or shared driveway through arbitration rather than filing a lawsuit, and the lower court correctly dismissed the lawsuit.
B) the Martins had not pled sufficient facts to support their allegation that their use of the Bicknells' side of the driveway was adverse and exclusive, exclusivity being a requirement for a prescriptive easement.
C) the Martins' concurrent and overlapping use of the driveway with the Bicknells was entirely consistent with, and not a legitimate basis to dismiss, their claim of a prescriptive easement because exclusivity is not required.
D) the lower court determined that the Martins had failed to state a claim, either for an implied grant of an easement or a prescriptive easement, and correctly dismissed their complaint.