A long-running dispute between neighboring homeowners over the use of a shared driveway has resulted in an appellate court ordering a new review of the legal standards applied to the case. The conflict centers on whether one family is entitled to continued access across part of their neighbors’ land, which they have used for years as part of their driveway.
Kenneth Shea and Catherine Ann Shea filed an appeal with the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, after a final order from the Chancery Division, Morris County, denied them a prescriptive easement over property owned by Remo DiPopolo and Dolores Ann DiPopolo. The appellate opinion was submitted on October 16, 2025, and decided on March 30, 2026.
According to court documents, the Sheas purchased their home at 111 Columbia Turnpike in December 2003. At that time, a survey revealed that part of their horseshoe-shaped driveway extended onto what is now the DiPopolos’ property at 113 Columbia Turnpike. The disputed portion is located at the western end of the driveway. While the house at 111 Columbia was built in 1981 and aerial photographs show the driveway existed since at least April 1990, it was not until after purchasing their home that the Sheas paved what had previously been a gravel drive between 2005 and 2007.
The Sheas used this section of driveway continuously until 2021 when they received a letter from the DiPopolos requesting they stop using that portion. Following this request, defendants erected a fence blocking access to that area. The DiPopolos had purchased their lot in 2001 when it was vacant; they built and moved into their home there in 2016. During earlier redevelopment work on another nearby property (Brooklake), Remo DiPopolo and his associates also used this section of driveway for construction purposes.
The Sheas sued for declaratory judgment seeking recognition of a prescriptive easement—a right to use part of another’s land due to long-term open use—over this portion of driveway. After a bench trial, however, the trial court denied relief based on its finding that both parties had used the disputed area, concluding that such shared use meant plaintiffs’ use was not “exclusive” as required for adverse possession claims.
On appeal, Judges Berdote Byrne and Jablonski reviewed whether this legal analysis was appropriate. The appellate panel noted that while factual findings from bench trials are given deference if supported by credible evidence, no such deference applies to incorrect interpretations or applications of law.
The opinion explained key differences between adverse possession—which requires exclusive use excluding even record owners—and prescriptive easements—which allow for some shared use with owners so long as certain conditions are met. Citing precedents including Plaza v. Flak (1951) and Randolph Town Center v. County of Morris (2005), the panel clarified: “the exclusivity requirement as used in the prescriptive easement context means only that the user have acted independently of rights claimed by others.” Shared use with record owners does not defeat such claims if plaintiffs’ rights are exercised independently.
The panel concluded: “the trial court erred in concluding Remo DiPopolo’s use … rendered plaintiffs’ claim non-exclusive.” Since other elements necessary for establishing a prescriptive easement were not addressed by the lower court—such as whether use was adverse or hostile, continuous for thirty years (including through prior owners), visible or notorious—the appellate division vacated the July 8, 2024 order and remanded for proper application under correct legal standards.
As stated in its conclusion: “Because the trial court did not address remaining elements, we decline to do so… We therefore decline to address defendants’ cross appeal challenging [the] ‘temporary easement,’ and denial of trespass counterclaim.” The matter will return to Chancery Division for further proceedings consistent with these directions.
Kenneth Shea and Catherine Ann Shea were represented by Kristen Jones from Piro Zinna Cifelli Paris & Genitempo LLC; Remo DiPopolo and Dolores Ann DiPopolo were represented by Gary F. Werner from Schenck Price Smith & King LLP. The case is identified as Docket No. A-3984-23.
Source: A398423_Shea_v_Dipoplo_Opinion_New_Jersey_Superior_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
