Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />driveway easement to third parties for purposes of construction, reconstruction, <br />maintenance and repair is beyond the scope of the easement. <br />7. The Referee’s Findings with respect to the driveway easement were erroneous as <br />these Findings go against the weight of the evidence. <br />8. This Court finds that Petitioners attempt to create a public road easement out of <br />the existing easements is outside the scope of said easements. Tlie parties <br />intended to create appurtenant private driveway easements and single residence <br />utility easements. The parties did not intend to create a public road easement. <br />9. The Court rejects the Title Examiner’s proposed Conclusions of Law 1(c) and <br />2(c) at pages 3 and 4 of the Examiner’s Report. The Examiner’s findings that <br />Petitioners have the authority to grant rights in their appurtenant easements over <br />Tract G to third parties who do not own any part of Tract H is speculative and not <br />supported by the evidence. <br />10. This Court agrees with the Findings of the Title Examiner except insofar as <br />modified. <br />ORDER <br />IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: <br />I. The Report of Examiner of Titles Including Findings of Fact, Conclusions of <br />Law, and Recommended Order, in addition to the attached Memorandum dated <br />December 2, 2003, is hereby adopted except as to the following: <br />a. Conclusions of Law, % 1(c) is hereby VACATED. <br />b. Conclusions of Law, ^ 2(c) is hereby VACATED. <br />c. Memoranda, 21-27 are hereby VACATED.