In Glatts v. Henson (1948) 31 Cal.2d 368, the plaintiffs brought an action to quiet title to a 30-foot wide portion of property on their land over which an easement for road purposes had been reserved for neighboring owners. (Glatts, supra, 31 Cal.2d at pp. 369-370.) Undisputed evidence established that the plaintiffs had erected buildings on a 17 1/2-foot strip of the 30-foot wide easement without the easement claimants' permission, and they had maintained the buildings for more than five years before the commencement of their quiet title action. (Id. at p. 370.) The 30-foot easement had not been used except for the east 12 1/2 feet. (Ibid.) Under those circumstances, the California Supreme Court held the 17 1/2-foot portion of the easement was extinguished. (Id. at p. 372.) Further, explaining that the burden of proving tax payment rested on the record owner of the easement, the court held that the law presumed that no taxes were levied on the easement, and there was no proof by the easement claimants that taxes were assessed. (Ibid.) It ordered that judgment be entered in plaintiffs' favor quieting title as against defendants to that portion of the easement. (Ibid.) The Court California Supreme Court considered the issue of extinguishment of an easement by prescription. An easement had been granted "'for road purposes.'" (Id. at p. 369.) The owners of the fee interest in the property on which the easement was located constructed buildings on the easement, without the consent of the easement claimants, and maintained those buildings for more than five years. (Id. at p. 370.) The court held, "an easement may be extinguished by the user of the servient tenement in a manner adverse to the exercise of the easement, for the period required to give title to land by adverse possession." (Id. at p. 371.) The Supreme Court further held, "the nonpermissive erection and maintenance for the statutory period of permanent structures, such as buildings, which obstruct and prevent the use of the easement will operate to extinguish the easement." (Ibid.) Because there was a presumption that no taxes were levied on the easement, and there was no evidence that taxes were assessed separately from the taxes assessed upon the fee interest, the owners of the fee interest were determined to have prescriptively extinguished the portion of the easement for road purposes on which the buildings sat. (Id. at p. 372.) In sum, in Glatts v. Henson (1948) the plaintiffs erected buildings on a 17 1/2-foot strip of a 30-foot wide easement for road purposes across their property. Undisputed evidence established that the plaintiffs had not obtained permission from the easement claimants to construct the buildings, that the plaintiffs maintained those buildings for more than five years prior to the commencement of their quiet title action and that the defendants had not used the strip of land in question at all during that period. Under those circumstances, the Glatts court found that a portion of the easement had been extinguished by adverse possession. (Glatts, supra, 31 Cal.2d at pp. 370-371.) In Glatts, the plaintiffs' nonpermissive construction and maintenance of buildings in a strip of the easement for more that five years which prevented the use of that portion of the easement by the defendants operated to extinguish that part of the easement. (Glatts, supra, 31 Cal.2d at pp. 370-371.) Therefore, Glatts confirms that the Michauds would have to show that their use of the part of the easement encumbered by the gate structures prevented the Prehns from using that part of the easement.