Laserfiche WebLink
Ho™3-1=901 <br />The parties to this action, however, do not dispute that the <br />deed between the Hhitsans and Defendants created an easement over <br />Tract E in favor of Tracts A, c, and D, and that the 1978 easement <br />agreement modified the rights and obligations of the various <br />parties who had an interest in the easement at that time. The <br />parties dispute, however, whether the extent of the easement would <br />allow Plaintiff to extend the existing roadway into the northern <br />portion of Tract E. <br />After reviewing the parties' contentions, the Court concludes <br />that the scope of the particular easement, as contemplated by the <br />express language of the 1976 deed and by the 1978 easement <br />agreement, is without restrictions as to the geographic location of <br />the easement over Tract E. There is no limiting legal description <br />Of the easement, nor is there any other limiting definition of the <br />easement's location other than the tract of land originally platted <br />as a roadway and demarcated as Tract E. Accordingly, from the face <br />Of the warranty deed and from the 1978 easement agreement, the <br />whole of Tract E is subject to an easement for driveway purposes, <br />access to County Road 6, and for utilities. <br />Moreover, even if the language of the 1976 deed and the 1978 <br />easement agreement is construed as ambiguous. Defendants have not <br />submitted by affidavit or otherwise evidence of any discussions or <br />agreements the parties had concerning the scope of the <br />a motion for summary judgment must present A party opposing a morion <br />8