Oliviа оwned а five-аcre tract оf fоrest land that she used for recreation; the north side of her land adjoined Blue Lake. Terri owned a 20-acre parcel located immediately south of Olivia’s land. Because Terri’s land was forested and unimproved, she used it only for recreation during the summer months. After buying the land, Terri camped on it each weekend over the next four summers during July and August. Because Terri’s land did not adjoin Blue Lake, she walked across Olivia’s land almost every day while she was camping to swim in the lake. When Olivia saw Terri walking across her (Olivia’s) land the first time Terri did so, Olivia shouted: “Have a great time at the lake!” Subsequently, Olivia often saw Terri on her way to the lake and waved to her in a friendly manner. Terri then conveyed title to her land to Bob, who crossed Olivia’s land in the same manner as Olivia had done and just as frequently. On a number of occasions, Olivia saw Bob on her land and waved to him. Three years later, after a dispute arose between Olivia and Bob, Olivia refused to allow him to cross her land. Bob then sued Olivia to obtain a declaratory judgment that he had a prescriptive easement to cross her land. Assuming that the relevant statutory period is five years, what is the most likely basis for the court to rule against Bob?
A develоper creаted аn exclusive residentiаl subdivisiоn. In his deed tо each lot, the following language appeared: Grantee agrees for himself and assigns to use this property solely as a single-family residence, to pay monthly fees as levied by the homeowners' association for upkeep and security guard services, and that the backyard of this property shall remain unfenced so that bicycle paths and walkways may run through each backyard, as per the subdivision master plan [adequately described], for use by all residents of the subdivision. The developer sold lots to an actuary, a baker, and a coroner. All deeds were recorded. The subdivision was developed without backyard fences, with bicycle paths and walkways in place in accordance with the general plan. The actuary in turn sold to an accountant by a deed that omitted any mention of the covenants above, and the accountant had no actual knowledge thereof. Shortly thereafter, the accountant started operating a tax preparation business out of his home. The baker in turn sold to a barber, who knew of, but refused to pay, the monthly fees levied by the homeowners' association. The coroner leased her property for 10 years to a chiropractor, who erected a fence around the backyard, unaware of the covenant against such fencing. According to common law principles, which of the following statements is correct?