In my research I find that 'Downing v. Bird, 100 So. 2d 57 - Fla: Supreme Court 1958' appears to be an important, and often cited case regarding prescriptive easements in Florida. Possibly because of my lack of legal education, an important except from this case is rather unclear to me. It appears that said excerpt could provide measurable insight in determining the answer which I am seeking. I read the statement 'must not be a permissive use' to mean the claimant must be using the lands without the permission of the owner. However, the source of what I perceive as a contradiction is the following language; 'the use or possession is presumed to be in subordination to the title of the true owner, and with his permission'. I will post a comment which will contain the full except.Here is the full except, from 'Downing v. Bird', to which I refer above; In either prescription or adverse possession, the right is acquired only by actual, continuous, uninterrupted use by the claimant of the lands of another, for a prescribed period. In addition the use must be adverse under claim of right and must either be with the knowledge of the owner or so open, notorious, and visible that knowledge of the use by and adverse claim of the claimant is imputed to the owner. In both rights the use or possession must be inconsistent with the owner's use and enjoyment of his lands and must not be a permissive use, for the use must be such that the owner has a right to a legal action to stop it, such as an action for trespass or ejectment. Further in either prescription or adverse possession, the use or possession is presumed to be in subordination to the title of the true owner, and with his permission and the burden is on the claimant to prove that the use or possession is adverse.