Laserfiche WebLink
VAieMa V. Lvrrmncm <br />court ril« No. CT f3«l2901 <br />and access to County Road Mo. 6 and for utilities, <br />subject to agreeaent between the parties hereto that <br />Maintenance of, and taxes on, said Tract E shall be borne <br />by the owners of Tracts A, B, C and D, dependent on use <br />proportionate to linear usage of Tract E computed after <br />Q residence has been constructed on a particular tract, <br />and that 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, Be. 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 6 and the Whitmans* <br />residence on Tract B. (Edith Whitman Aff. 11 III A IV). <br />The 1976 deed also granted Defendants the right to siibdivide <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. 1 V; La%n:ence Aff. 1 10). An <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 lots <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 />^In their pleadings and at the hearing on this motion <br />Plaintiffs have used the terms "roadway** and "driveway <br />interchangeably. The Court concludes that the easement over Tract <br />E contemplated a roadway for "driveway purposes and access to <br />County Road No. 6 and for utilities." Any reference to a roadway <br />in this Order is limited to that purpose.