“To prove a prescriptive right to an easement, all the elements of prescriptive use must be generally established by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence….'” Leu v. Littell, 2 Neb. App. 323, 513 N.W.2d 24 (1993); Svoboda v. Johnson, 204 Neb. 57, 62, 281 N.W.2d 892, 897 (1979).
In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the easement’s terms must be given their plain and ordinary meaning, as ordinary, average and reasonable persons would understand those terms. University Place-Lincoln Assoc. v. Nelsen, 247 Neb. 761, 530 N.W.2d 241 (1995). See Fritsch v. Hilton Land & Co., 245 Neb. 469, 513 N.W.2d 534 (1994); Prawl Engineering v. Charles Vrana & Son Constr., 241 Neb. 49, 486 N.W.2d 24 (1992).
Where the use of an easement has been adverse, notorious, and uninterrupted for the statutory period, it will be presumed to have been under a claim of right. The owner of the servient tenements is charged with knowledge of such use and acquiescence in it is implied. Smith v. Bixby, 196 Neb. 235, 242 N.W.2d 115 (1976); Dunnick v. Stockgrowers Bank of Marmouth, 191 Neb. 370, 215 N.W.2d 93 (1974). See also Scoville v. Fisher, 181 Neb. 496, 149 N.W.2d 339 (1967).