required to acquire title to real estate by adverse possession.” 25 Am Jur .2d Easements & Licenses § 39 (2014). Even so, these cases are not dispositive given the fundamental differences between a claim of adverse possession and one by prescription. Specifically, “adverse possession operates to divest title to the land at issue whereas the rights of prescriptive easement in land are measured and defined by the use made of the land giving rise to the easement.” Id. (emphasis added). Moreover, other state jurisdictions are divided as to whether the standard of proving a prescriptive easement is by clear and convincing evidence or a preponderance of the evidence. See Daniel J. Smith, Establishment of Private Prescriptive Easement, 2 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 125 § 3 (1988 & Supp. 2015) (<HOLDING>); James W. Ely, Jr. and Jon W. Bruce, The Law
holding that burden of clear and convincing proof cannot be satisfied by mere conjecture or speculation recognizing that majority of jurisdictions hold that the burden of proving an easement is on the party claiming such right and must be established by clear and convincing proof holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied holding that the burden of proving seaman status is on the party claiming benefits therefrom holding that a finding of fraud may be reversed only for clear error but that the finding must be judged in view of the clear and convincing burden of proof