Laserfiche WebLink
vAicman v. tawrenc# <br />Court rU* No. CT 93-12901 <br />anH a-cess to County Road No. 6 and for utilities, <br />sublect II agreeLn/ between the parties hereto ttat <br />naintcnance of, and taxes on, said Tract E shall be borne <br />bv thriwners of Tracts A, B, C and D, dependent on use <br />proportionate to linear usage of Tract E computed after <br />a residence has been constructed on a particular tract, <br />j the owner of each tract shall be solely <br />responsible for repair of any damage caused to the road <br />by him or by his agents or subcontractors. <br />(John Whitman Aff. 1 IV, Ex. C). At the time of the conveyance <br />from the Whitmans to Defendants, a driveway had been laid out along <br />a portion of Tract E, between County Road « and the Whitmans' <br />residence on Tract B. (Edith Whitman Aff. M III * IV). <br />The 1976 deed also granted Defendants the right to subdivide <br />Tract B. After acquiring additional acreage. Defendants ultimately <br />subdivided Tract B to create a parcel of land now )cnown as <br />"Tanglewood." (John Whitman Aff. J V; Lavnrence Aff. 1 10). *n <br />outlot on the Tanglewood tract was subsequently dedicated for a <br />roadway to provide the Tanglewood lots access to County Road 6. <br />(John Whitman Aff. 1 V, Ex. D). As a result, the Tanglewood lets <br />did not require the use of the roadway' then existing over Tract <br />E to access County Road 6. <br />on July 28, 1978, the Whitmans and Defendants entered into an <br />"Easement Agreement," which released the Tanglewood lots from the <br />iln their pleadings and at the hearing i <br />Plaintiffs have used the terms 'roadway an Tract <br />interchangeably. The Court concludes that the easement <br />E contemplated a roadway for "driveway purposes and access to <br />Lunty Ro^ad No. 6 and fo/ utilities." Any reference to a roadway <br />in this Order is limited to that purpose.