Gary D. Bradshaw, Monica Bradshaw, Robert W. Crumpler, and Betty Crumpler v. Enterprise Realty, Inc., Enterprise Country Club, Inc., et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/25/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2101074 Gary D. Bradshaw, Monica Bradshaw, Robert W. Crumpler, and B e t t y Crumpler v. E n t e r p r i s e R e a l t y , I n c . , E n t e r p r i s e Country Club, I n c . , e t al. Appeal from Coffee C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-94) THOMAS, J u d g e . Gary and D. B r a d s h a w , Monica Bradshaw, Betty Crumpler f i l e d Coffee Circuit Court Robert a declaratory-judgment naming Enterprise W. C r u m p l e r , action i n the Realty, Inc., and 2101074 Enterprise Country defendants an Club, easement Bradshaws and which located i s abutted subdivision"). by in club"), the action, stating and denying that the property property Orwin Lewis Creek owned by Pointe the Crumplers, s u b d i v i s i o n ("the a n d C o r a l Sue L e w i s , owners o f a Enterprise club e a c h moved t o be d i s m i s s e d t h a t t h e y h a d no i n t e r e s t they a After that of owned b y t h e were t h e easement the dominant-estate served. The trial summary judgment, which a trial, the t r i a l court entered t h e s u b d i v i s i o n was the t r i a l t h e dominant owners court court whose denied also a judgment estate from i n t h e easement motions t o d i s m i s s , and t h e Bradshaws and t h e Crumplers for as intervened i n the action. and t h e c o u n t r y interests across the i n the subdivision, Realty country and r e q u e s t i n g t h e t e r m i n a t i o n or extinguishment ingress/egress lot I n c . ("the the moved denied. determining served by the easement, d i s m i s s i n g E n t e r p r i s e R e a l t y and t h e c o u n t r y c l u b as parties, determining overburdened, easement. court's that and d e c l i n i n g the easement to terminate had to the Alabama 2 been or extinguish the The B r a d s h a w s a n d t h e C r u m p l e r s a p p e a l e d judgment not Supreme the t r i a l Court, which 2101074 transferred 1975, § to this court, pursuant t o A l a . Code 12-2-7(6). The 1996, the appeal record Coffee discloses Developers with the Probate that the subdivision streets, Court several foot-wide recorded of Coffee had easement a country County. the The p l a t easements, drainage easement across and home across Lot 7 upon leads which and g o l f - c o u r s e In subdivision 100 Realty club of and utility owned b y E n t e r p r i s e a plat facts. approximately ingress/egress ingress/egress operates the following pertinent indicated lots, named and Lot a 7. to the 10The property the country club facility. I n 1 9 9 8 , t h e L e w i s e s p u r c h a s e d L o t 34 i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n . According abutting explained the t o Orwin, the golf Orwin t e s t i f i e d to course his desire that to cater the golf Barr available with f o r access had e x p l a i n e d course had been r e s e r v e d through Burt t o g o l f e r s and t h a t l o c a t e d n e a r L o t 34. course were t h a t he h a d d i s c u s s e d subdivision, intended a t t h e t i m e he p u r c h a s e d L o t 3 4 , no Orwin t e s t i f i e d t h e e a s e m e n t was 3 f o r purchase. Barr, that a major course. the subdivision an e a s e m e n t across He a builder for to the g o l f that lots f o r access L o t 7, w h i c h was access to the g o l f consideration in his 2101074 d e c i s i o n to purchase Lot easement had purchase a formed p a r t l o t i n the A l t h o u g h the years Orwin 34; Coral of the Sue also t e s t i f i e d that basis for e a s e m e n t was not passable o w n e d h i s home b e c a u s e that trees he and unimproved, to u t i l i z e He arranged to have the the 7, e a s e m e n t c o u l d be accessed from the and using others began to the the cross Lot easement. the time, In 2001, easement curb i n s t a l l e d street. easement would for At few in which, at that blocking a l s o a r r a n g e d t o h a v e a ramp o v e r t h e first were g r o w i n g rear of the trees f o r the others 7 d i a g o n a l l y to access the back of Lot Orwin decision subdivision. easement, Orwin e x p l a i n e d was their the cut. so the that point, access to the he golf course. The Lot C r u m p l e r s own 7. They b u i l t since that easement when e a s e m e n t was 8 and time. their Robert he not Lot 8, home had easement. Notably, and that he Lot 8. at the easement have was According his there 2000 utilized being testified, in testified purchased constructed which abuts the home. "been the After a lot Crumplers 4 of in i t of the Robert, the purchased Lot however, different testified aware to t i m e he 2003, lived across use" that, Robert on the although 2101074 R o b e r t was a golfer, golf course less than he n e v e r but, instead, a minute to used t h e easement t o access t h e utilized the time another i t took route to that reach added the golf course. The C r u m p l e r s both t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e use o f t h e easement i n c l u d e d not o n l y use by r e s i d e n t s of the s u b d i v i s i o n b u t a l s o use by other people explained that from outside the subdivision. t h e easement was c a r t s g o i n g t o and from the g o l f terrain vehicles/four-wheelers a u t o m o b i l e s and t r u c k s . foot, joggers, easement. confined not s o l e l y They utilized also by golf course but by b i c y c l e s , a l l - ("ATVs"), m o t o r c y c l e s , and e v e n According to the Crumplers, people and p e o p l e The C r u m p l e r s walking their complained to the daylight or e a r l y dogs also used the was not that the a c t i v i t y evening hours on but extended i n t o t h e n i g h t t i m e h o u r s , sometimes even so l a t e as t o d i s t u r b them w h i l e t h e y s l e p t . the easement caused They f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d trash, t h e i r p o r c h and i n t h e i r of debris, and d i r t t h a t the use of t o accumulate back and s i d e yards and t h a t t h e use t h e easement had caused e r o s i o n i n t h e easement t r a c k they said, Crumplers' had caused people yard, which, to alter i n turn, 5 on that, t h e i r path to cross the caused damage to or the 2101074 destruction of their outdoor l i g h t i n g . property such as F i n a l l y , the Crumplers o f t h e p e o p l e who h a d u s e d sprinkler heads and c o m p l a i n e d t h a t some t h e easement had v a n d a l i z e d their home. The Bradshaws p u r c h a s e d L o t 7 i n 2001 and b u i l t the l o t i n 2002-2003. the easement existence the when Both t e s t i f i e d they purchased o f t h e easement Crumplers, easement b o t h day and n i g h t their driveway t h a t t h e y were aware o f the lot; in i s contained i n their t h e Bradshaws and s p r i n k l e r complained fact, deed. the Like o f t h e use of the and of e r o s i o n heads, a home o n d a m a g e , damage t o an i n c r e a s e i n t r a s h and d e b r i s a l o n g t h e easement, and t h e i n a p p r o p r i a t e use of t h e i r backyard as a "short Monica complained along the trespassed path c u t " t o t h e easement. that on dog walkers her property In a l l o w e d dogs and that addition, to defecate people i n h e r y a r d a t a l l h o u r s , c i t i n g , as one often example, a s e t o f t e e n a g e r s who s h e d i s c o v e r e d w a l k i n g i n h e r b a c k y a r d at 2:30 a.m. Both Gary and Monica testified that, at least f i v e n i g h t s p e r w e e k , t h e e a s e m e n t was u s e d b e t w e e n 1 0 : 0 0 p.m. and 4:00 a.m., property. interrupting their "quiet enjoyment" A c c o r d i n g t o G a r y , he h a d once a p p r e h e n d e d 6 of their a group 2101074 of teenagers those using teenagers had clubhouse, stolen into a route lake to on allegedly golf the Pfeifer, at the in broken course. He into morning the Gary t e s t i f i e d to another early hours; country-club a country-club golf course desired trial. the driven golf o w n e r s who Norris testified easement l i q u o r , and the access subdivision the was use resident testified that available the course. of the that he cart another to the 1 subdivision, had looked at T o t h e e x t e n t t h e B r a d s h a w s a n d t h e C r u m p l e r s r e l y on t h e f a c t t h a t an a l t e r n a t e r o u t e t o a c c e s s t h e g o l f c o u r s e e x i s t s , we note t h a t , because the easement i s not an e a s e m e n t by n e c e s s i t y , the e x i s t e n c e of t h a t a l t e r n a t e route i s i r r e l e v a n t and cannot be used to compel a relinquishment of the s u b d i v i s i o n owners' p r o p e r t y r i g h t s i n the easement. Magna, I n c . v . C a t r a n i s , 512 So. 2 d 9 1 2 , 914 ( A l a . 1987) (lack of need of e n t i r e t y of easement i r r e l e v a n t to d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r the s e r v i e n t - e s t a t e owner c o u l d l e a s e a p o r t i o n o f the e a s e m e n t t o a n o t h e r p a r t y ) ; s e e a l s o E x p a r t e F o l s o m , 42 So. 3 d 7 3 2 , 739 (Ala. 2009). As o u r s u p r e m e c o u r t has explained: 1 "Our r e s p e c t f o r p r o p e r t y r i g h t s w i l l n o t p e r m i t us t o d i m i n i s h o r r e d u c e Magna's r i g h t s s i m p l y b e c a u s e n e i t h e r Magna nor i t s t e n a n t needs a l l t h e p r o p e r t y t o w h i c h i t has property rights. Certainly, our f e d e r a l and s t a t e c o n s t i t u t i o n s p r o t e c t s u c h r i g h t s and would prohibit judicial deprivation or diminution of such rights based s o l e l y upon a j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f an o w n e r ' s l a c k o f n e e d f o r s u c h p r o p e r t y . The i m p l i c a t i o n s of a contrary r e s u l t w o u l d be f r i g h t e n i n g . " M a g n a , 512 So. 2d at 914. 7 2101074 b o t h L o t 7 a n d L o t 8 w h e n h e was l o o k i n g the subdivision. He said that had resulted i n h i s decision t o purchase a l o t i n the presence o f t h e easement not t o purchase e i t h e r of those l o t s b e c a u s e he h a d e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e u s e o f e a s e m e n t w o u l d be an annoyance t o t h e owners o f t h o s e that lots. Pfeifer t h e s u b d i v i s i o n development had been t o u t e d community biggest and t h a t selling t h e easement points across testified as a g o l f i n g L o t 7 was one o f t h e of the subdivision. D a v i d N a u m a n n , who d o e s n o t r e s i d e i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n b u t owns p r o p e r t y abutting the subdivision and t h e g o l f course, p a r t o f w h i c h i s l o c a t e d b e h i n d L o t 7, t e s t i f i e d r e g a r d i n g t h e use o f t h e easement. motorcycles, He trucks, said ATV's, u s e d on t h e e a s e m e n t . that he h a d s e e n automobiles, b i c y c l e s , and skateboards He i n d i c a t e d t h a t h e h a d p r e s u m e d being that those using t h e e a s e m e n t i n s u c h a manner w e r e n o t members o f the country club. the easement Naumann, He also occurred both that t h e use and misuse o f day and night. t h e use o f t h e easement enjoyment o f h i s property Naumann s p e c i f i c a l l y drivers noted of golf carts interferes with and poses a t h r e a t stated that utilizing 8 According to h i s quiet to his security. he h a d no c o n c e r n s w i t h t h e t h e easement. 2101074 As noted to terminate above, or extinguish property. The the court trial served by county club trial the with court easement On appeal, the t r i a l extinguish easement that consideration the evidence the trial and the served Crumplers country across erred country by the view club the owners despite easement what was club the lots in the of court's they take are the failure argue was to clear After a easements and a r e v i e w of i t determined were easement. servient or at t r i a l , we affirm the court. when because owners Realty overburdened. and t h e Crumplers the process, a s t o who the t r i a l and t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d court In the dominant-estate determination of the law governing Bradshaws the Bradshaws' Enterprise the and w i t h judgment of the t r i a l The the not were court's owners evidence that t o do s o . desired t h e Bradshaws and t h e Crumplers dominant-estate the refused were instead and t h e Crumplers t h e easement a c r o s s determined but subdivision. issue the Bradshaws not The evidence, estate, that complain the Realty the dominant-estate owners way the Bradshaws easement access to and the benefited the the golf i . e . , the Bradshaws' 9 that Enterprise the i t allowed first course property. 2101074 E n t e r p r i s e R e a l t y and t h e c o u n t r y c l u b v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e differently. than an they never with the present They argue incidental that they one, from the receive no court that case are the clearly b e n e f i t , other easement, which, they r e q u e s t e d o r b a r g a i n e d f o r a t any trial time. dominant-estate the quite owners We owners of lots say, agree in the in the discuss the subdivision. To general explain our conclusion, law g o v e r n i n g appurtenant a property right. we will first easements. Magna, I n c . v. C a t r a n i s , 2 An 512 easement i s So. 2d a t 913¬ 14. "'"A p a r c e l o f l a n d b e n e f i t e d b y an e a s e m e n t i s d e s c r i b e d as t h e dominant e s t a t e or the dominant tenement. By definition, an easement appurtenant i s c r e a t e d f o r t h e a d v a n t a g e o f t h e owner o f the dominant estate. When an no d o m i n a n t easement i s i n g r o s s , estate exists." " ' B r u c e & E l y , The Law o f E a s e m e n t s L i c e n s e s i n L a n d , P a r a . 2.02 (1988). and The The Bradshaws, the C r u m p l e r s , and t h e L e w i s e s a l l agree the e a s e m e n t i s an e a s e m e n t a p p u r t e n a n t , w h i c h a p p e a r s t o be the c a s e . I n a n y e v e n t , b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s do n o t a r g u e t h a t t h e e a s e m e n t i s a n e a s e m e n t i n g r o s s , we w i l l a n a l y z e t h e c a s e under the law g o v e r n i n g appurtenant easements. 2 10 2101074 b e n e f i t t h e owner o f t h e d o m i n a n t tenement. 3 P o w e l l on R e a l P r o p e r t y , 34-21 (1992) "Gowen v . C o t e , 8 7 5 S.W.2d 6 3 7 , 641 n . App. 1994) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . " Weeks v . W o l f 2006). Creek Indus., Put another enjoying the servient estate imposed.'" way, easement, i s and to one which upon Walker v. C l i f f o r d , (quoting 591 (1901) not estate i s t h e one i t i s attached; which 128 A l a . whether t h e dominant e s t a t e the the easement i s 6 7 , 7 4 , 29 S o . 5 8 8 , T i e d e m a n on R e a l P r o p . § 4 9 7 ) . i s a single parcel w h e t h e r , as h e r e , i t i s a group o f s u b d i v i d e d 941 (Mo. C t . I n c . , 941 S o . 2 d 2 6 3 , 2 6 9 ( A l a . " ' [ a ]dominant the 4 I t matters of land or parcels. Weeks, So. 2d a t 269-70. Although the country club might b e n e f i t i n a tangential o r i n c i d e n t a l w a y b y h a v i n g t h o s e o f i t s m e m b e r s who h a p p e n t o live i n the subdivision entitled way of i t i s t h e owners parcels able t h e easement, i n the subdivision to cross instead Crumplers that derive a neighbor's property of having subdivision. that t o access t h e g o l f course by t o take a route court 11 the the benefit subdivided of being t o access the golf around T h u s , we c a n n o t a g r e e w i t h the t r i a l of erred the borders course of the t h e Bradshaws and t h e i n determining that the 2101074 subdivision benefit. was their determining erred in the that the the s u b d i v i s i o n was concluding the Bradshaws and the estate that serves to erred in dominant e s t a t e , the trial the the responsibility owners to of however, ownership use reservation the to of to maintain the right parcels the authority is consistent with land that remains effect, so in ... the him, far as to law the a l l the court in the easement. to improve or A l t h o u g h a s e r v i e n t - e s t a t e owner "'has benefits court the Crumplers complain t h a t the s u b d i v i s i o n owners the easement; right easement the Crumplers argue b r i e f l y t h a t the t r i a l s u b d i v i s i o n had grant argument that the B r a d s h a w s and The dominant 3 Within also the does 4 not maintain contrary. rights and easement [ a n d ] the without such any right express does not B e c a u s e we h a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t err i n determining that the s u b d i v i s i o n was the dominant e s t a t e , we w i l l n o t d i s c u s s t h e a r g u m e n t a d v a n c e d b y the B r a d s h a w s and t h e C r u m p l e r s i n t h e i r b r i e f t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e o f m e r g e r somehow e x t i n g u i s h e d t h e e a s e m e n t b e c a u s e E n t e r p r i s e R e a l t y a n d t h e c o u n t r y c l u b a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e y h a d no i n t e r e s t i n the easement. 3 Notably, the Bradshaws and the Crumplers, in c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. A p p . P., p r e s e n t no authority for their statements that the trial court's c o n c l u s i o n i s not s u p p o r t e d by the law g o v e r n i n g easements. 4 12 2101074 c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e p u r p o s e and c h a r a c t e r o f t h e easement,'" has no duty to Homes, I n c . , Jur. 2d maintain 358 So. Easements ordinarily has refrain from However, easement holder for 151 t o do repair the -- the servient 89) ("'A positive 478, 83 So. easement for entitled to b r e a k up and remove 568, 571 ingress "enter l e v e l the s o i l , impediments, and obstructing or the maintain, and to secure Goodall, i t s use 203 Ala. ( h o l d i n g t h a t t h e owner o f egress land, or with v. to land construct f i l l supply to and cut timber repair the up d e p r e s s i o n s , b l a s t deficiencies" in of Thereon, rule that maintain, Easement 112 of A.L.R. the 1303, owner improve, Way or of to Make 1303-04 an repair Improvements the 13 way rocks, order to of a or Repairs is a general way of in was ("It (1938) easement an way, p e r f e c t and e n j o y t h e e a s e m e n t ) ; see a l s o A n n o t a t i o n , R i g h t Owner to i s required prepare, Ellard (1919) and the See owner he d o m i n a n t e s t a t e -to Am. act with respect easement, but right purpose. Crest ( q u o t i n g 25 owner o f t h e has Pine § any o f an v. ( A l a . 1978) the easement t o the e x t e n t n e c e s s a r y i t s intended 476, 148, Duke unlawfully interfering it.'"). repair easement. Licenses, duty the maintenance or to 2d and no the he may manner prepare, and to an 2101074 e x t e n t r e a s o n a b l y c a l c u l a t e d t o promote t h e purposes f o r which it was created or acquired, upon t h e s e r v i e n t e s t a t e , the rights of others."). erred common T h u s , we We turn Crumplers now that owners extinguished burden that with rights the t r i a l of court t h e duty t o m a i n t a i n and r e p a i r t h e the subdivision easement owners. from i s due on t h e g r o u n d t h a t easement has been an undue the independent are not convinced supreme c o u r t has e x p l a i n e d an or t o t h e argument the neither n o r an u n w a r r a n t e d i n t e r f e r e n c e i n determining that easement r e s t s w i t h causing t h e Bradshaws to be and t h e terminated i t has been overburdened. the law regarding allegations overburdened. "First, ' t h e owner of the servient estate [ o r d i n a r i l y ] has t h e burden o f p r o v i n g overburdening because the servient owner has asserted o v e r b u r d e n i n g as a cause o f a c t i o n o r as a r e p l y t o a s p e c i a l d e f e n s e o f an e a s e m e n t when t h e p u r p o s e o f the easement i s n o t i n d i s p u t e . ' Zhang v. O m n i p o i n t C o m m u n i c a t i o n s E n t e r s . , I n c . , 272 C o n n . 6 2 7 , 640 n . 8, 8 6 6 A . 2 d 5 8 8 , 5 9 6 n . 8 ( 2 0 0 5 ) . S e e a l s o S h o o t i n g Point, L.L.C. v . W e s c o a t , 265 V a . 2 5 6 , 2 6 6 , 576 S . E . 2 d 4 9 7 , 502 ( 2 0 0 3 ) ; a n d L o g a n v . B r o d r i c k , 29 W a s h . A p p . 7 9 6 , 8 0 0 , 631 P . 2 d 4 2 9 , 432 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . "Second, as a g e n e r a l rule, an i n c r e a s e i n t r a f f i c o v e r an easement i n t h e p r o c e s s o f n o r m a l development o f t h e dominant e s t a t e , i n and of itself, does n o t o v e r b u r d e n a servient estate. G u t c h e o n v . B e c t o n , 5 8 5 A . 2 d 8 1 8 , 822 (Me. 1 9 9 1 ) ; D o w n i n g H o u s e R e a l t y v . Hampe, 127 N.H. 9 2 , 497 A . 2 d 14 or Our that 2101074 862 ( 1 9 8 5 ) ; S h o o t i n g P o i n t , L . L . C . , 265 V a . a t 267, 576 S . E . 2 d a t 5 0 3 ; [ J o n W.] B r u c e & [ J a m e s W.] Ely [ J r . , The Law o f E a s m e n t s a n d L i c e n s e s i n L a n d ] , 5 8 . 0 3 [ 1 ] ; and R e s t a t e m e n t ( T h i r d ) of P r o p e r t y § 4.10 [ [ ( 1 9 9 5 ) ] , comment f ( 2 0 0 0 ) . O r d i n a r i l y , t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g o f o v e r b u r d e n i n g , i t m u s t be s h o w n t h a t t h e u s e h a s c h a n g e d i n k i n d , r a t h e r t h a n e x t e n t . S h o o t i n g P o i n t , L . L . C . , 265 V a . at 267, 576 S . E . 2 d a t 503 (an i n c r e a s e i n t r a f f i c over the s e r v i e n t e s t a t e ' d e m o n s t r a t e s o n l y an i n c r e a s e i n d e g r e e o f b u r d e n , n o t a n i m p o s i t i o n o f a n a d d i t i o n a l b u r d e n , on the s e r v i e n t e s t a t e ' ) . See a l s o B l a l o c k v . C o n z e l m a n , 751 So. 2d 2 (Ala. 1999). " R e l e v a n t f a c t o r s i n c l u d e e v i d e n c e o f an a b r u p t 'abnormal' change i n the development of the or d o m i n a n t e s t a t e and r e s u l t i n g use o f t h e easement. G l e n n v . P o o l e , 12 M a s s . A p p . 292, 295, 423 N . E . 2 d 1030, 1033 (1981) ('In the law of easements, a mutation is not within the scope of normal development.'). A relevant showing might a l s o be made o f b u r d e n s s u c h a s '(1) decreased property value; (2) increased noise and traffic or i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h the s e r v i e n t owner's peace and e n j o y m e n t o f t h e l a n d ; and (3) p h y s i c a l d a m a g e t o t h e s e r v i e n t e s t a t e . ' B u r k h a r t v . J a c o b , 976 P.2d 1046 ( O k l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . See a l s o S m i t h v . F u l k r o a d , 305 Pa. S u p e r . 459, 463, 451 A . 2 d 738, 740 (1982) (a s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n ' d u s t , d i r t and n o i s e ' was a m a t e r i a l f a c t o r i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e r e had been 'a m a r k e d t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i n the former peaceful enjoyment' of the p r o p e r t y ) . Moreover, the use of the easement by owners of p r o p e r t y other than a subdivision of the dominant tenement -even property acquired by the dominant-tenement owner a f t e r c r e a t i o n o f t h e s e r v i t u d e -- o v e r b u r d e n s t h e s e r v i e n t e s t a t e as a m a t t e r o f l a w . I l G i a r d i n o , LLC v . B e l l e H a v e n L a n d Co., 254 Conn. 502, 516, 757 A.2d 1103, 1113 (2000); B r u c e & E l y , 5 8 . 0 3 [ 2 ] ; see a l s o W a t s o n v . L a z y S i x C o r p . , 608 So. 2 d 389 (Ala. 1 9 9 2 ) ; L o v e m a n v . L a y , 271 A l a . 3 8 5 , 124 So. 2 d 93 15 2101074 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ; a n d M c L a u g h l i n v . S e l e c t m e n o f A m h e r s t , 422 M a s s . 3 5 9 , 664 N . E . 2 d 7 8 6 ( 1 9 9 6 ) . "Third, unless expressly r e s t r i c t e d , theuse of an e a s e m e n t a p p u r t e n a n t i s n o t l i m i t e d t o t h e o w n e r s of t h e dominant e s t a t e , b u t a l s o inures to the benefit of their tenants, 'servants, agents, or employees i n conducting [their] business,' 28A C . J . S . E a s e m e n t s § 164 ( 1 9 9 6 ) , a s w e l l a s s o c i a l a n d business invitees, Gowen v . C o t e , 8 7 5 S.W.2d 6 3 7 , 641 (Mo. C t . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) ; a n d P i c a r d i v . Z i m m i o n d , 693 N.W.2d 6 5 6 , 664 ( S . D . 2 0 0 5 ) , w h i c h i n c l u d e s u s e by utility workers and ' u t i l i t y company service vehicles.'" Weeks, 941 So. 2 d a t 2 7 1 - 7 2 . The Bradshaws and t h eCrumplers argue t h a t they uncontroverted evidence overburdened. They demonstrating point to t h a t t h e e a s e m e n t was b e i n g not i n vandalism their that other the subdivision had r e s u l t e d from property had sustained easement, created and that noise respective was t h r o w n upon they trespassers), t h e use o f t h e easement, that that damage f r o m u s e o f t h e e a s e m e n t , their that land dirt, and d i s r u p t e d t h e i r peaceful As e x p l a i n e d 16 t r a s h , and by those t h e u s e o f t h e easement properties. provided u s e d b y p e r s o n s who d i d (i.e., t h e easement h a d eroded t h e l a n d , debris t h e e a s e m e n t was the evidence indicating live that presented using the at a l l hours enjoyment o f t h e i r i n Weeks, those facts 2101074 bear on t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n overburdening However, the servient those i t s existence "'"By estate. burdensome i n a vacuum. and use, definition, t h e u s e o f an easement i s f a c t s -- w h i l e cannot be c o n s i d e r e d of whether annoyances An easement i s , b y v i r t u e a burden to the servient an easement a p p u r t e n a n t i s created a d v a n t a g e o f t h e owner o f t h e d o m i n a n t e s t a t e . " ' " So. 2 d a t 269 ( q u o t i n g Gowen v . C o t e , 4 (Mo. C t . A p p . 1 9 9 4 ) , q u o t i n g Easements and Licenses omitted). benefit t h e owner Gowen, 875 S.W.2d easement e x i s t s of Para. 641 for the Weeks, 941 8 7 5 S.W.2d 6 3 7 , 6 4 1 n . n. 2.02 appurtenant o f t h e dominant at estate. i n t u r n B r u c e & E l y , The Law o f i n Land, "'The p u r p o s e -¬ (1988))(emphasis easements tenement.'" 4). i s to I d . (quoting However, although t o b e n e f i t t h e dominant e s t a t e , the "the [estate owners] have c o n c u r r e n t r i g h t s t o t h eu s e o f t h e easement, and neither can prevent [ e s t a t e owner] easement i n a manner the other consistent with t h e e a s e m e n t was c r e a t e d . from t h e purposes using the for which Thus, t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e easement c r e a t e s mutual r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s . " B l a l o c k v. Conzelman, 751 S o . 2 d 2, 6 ( A l a . of 1999). " ' [ T ] h e l a n d o w n e r may n o t , w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t t h e easement h o l d e r , u n r e a s o n a b l y i n t e r f e r e w i t h 17 2101074 the l a t t e r ' s r i g h t s o r change t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e e a s e m e n t s o a s t o make t h e u s e t h e r e o f s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d i f f i c u l t o r burdensome.' Boss v. Rockland E l e c . C o . , 95 N . J . 3 3 , 3 8 , 468 A . 2 d 1 0 5 5 , 1 0 5 8 (1983). C o n v e r s e l y , t h e easement h o l d e r '"can n o t change i t s c h a r a c t e r , o r m a t e r i a l l y i n c r e a s e t h e burden upon t h e s e r v i e n t e s t a t e . " ' White v. Walsh, 105 C a l . A p p . 2 d 8 2 8 , 8 3 2 , 234 P . 2 d 2 7 6 , 278 ( 1 9 5 1 ) (emphasis added) ( q u o t i n g B u r r i s v. P e o p l e ' s Ditch Co. , 104 C a l . 2 4 8 , 2 5 2 , 37 P. 9 2 2 , 9 2 3 ( 1 8 9 4 ) ) . Indeed, ' i t i s elementary l a w r e s p e c t i n g easements t h a t n e i t h e r t h e d o m i n a n t owner n o r t h e s e r v i e n t owner i s p e r m i t t e d t o m a t e r i a l l y a l t e r t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e s e r v i t u d e . ' G e r b e r v . A p p e l , 164 S.W.2d 2 2 5 , 228 (Mo. C t . A p p . 1 9 4 2 ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) , q u a s h e d i n part on o t h e r grounds, State ex r e l . Appel v. H u g h e s , 3 5 1 Mo. 4 8 8 , 1 7 3 S.W.2d 45 ( 1 9 4 3 ) . " Id. In those Alabama cases actually c o n s i d e r i n g whether an easement has been overburdened, t h e i s s u e has been whether t h e dominant-estate easement 271-74 owner should i n an o v e r b u r d e n i n g (wherein be enjoined manner. Weeks, t h e s e r v i e n t - e s t a t e owner further limitations alleged overburdening); from appealed, Place the 941 So. 2 d a t on t h e u s e o f t h e easement see a l s o Perdido using seeking because o f Condo. Owners A s s ' n , I n c . v . B e l l a L u n a C o n d o . O w n e r s A s s ' n , I n c . , 43 S o . 3 d 1201 the ( A l a . 2009) trial court's (wherein t h e s e r v i e n t - e s t a t e owner determination that appealed t h e use o f t h e easement would n o t overburden t h e s e r v i e n t e s t a t e and i t s d e c i s i o n n o t 18 2101074 to " v o i d " the the trial whether easement). court the was of on to the should case has determine overburdening owners extinguishment Alabama called alleged dominant-estate No of result easement. Other what in this case -¬ easement an in addressed by the the termination jurisdictions or have considered the i s s u e a n d , g e n e r a l l y , have d e c i d e d a g a i n s t the extinguishment or the most e g r e g i o u s cases easement. What See, 5th 313 involving generally, Constitutes, A.L.R. t e r m i n a t i o n of and an easement overburdening James Remedies L. i n a l l but or misuse Buchwalter, f o r , Misuse of of an Annotation, Easement, 111 (2003). " M i s u s e o f an e a s e m e n t r i g h t i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t to c o n s t i t u t e a f o r f e i t u r e , w a i v e r , or abandonment o f s u c h r i g h t . The r i g h t t o an e a s e m e n t i s n o t l o s t b y u s i n g i t i n an u n a u t h o r i z e d m a n n e r o r t o an unauthorized extent, unless i t i s impossible to s e v e r t h e i n c r e a s e d b u r d e n s o as t o p r e s e r v e t o t h e o w n e r o f t h e d o m i n a n t t e n e m e n t t h a t t o w h i c h he i s e n t i t l e d , a n d i m p o s e on t h e s e r v i e n t t e n e m e n t o n l y t h a t b u r d e n w h i c h was o r i g i n a l l y i m p o s e d u p o n i t . " Penn 64, 145, Bowling 66 R e c r e a t i o n C t r . v. (D.C. 146 C i r . 1950); (R.I. extinguishing ineffective an 1988) see also the unless Inc., 17 9 F.2d Dow, 544 A.2d v. courts have injunctive servient 19 Shoppes, Frenning ("Generally easement to r e l i e v e Hot not relief [estate]."). favored would be 2101074 "'Use o f an e a s e m e n t f o r an u n a u t h o r i z e d p u r p o s e , o r the e x c e s s i v e use or m i s u s e of i t , i s not s u f f i c i e n t to cause a f o r f e i t u r e of the easement, u n l e s s the m i s u s e o f t h e easement i s w i l l f u l and substantial a n d n o t m e r e l y m i n o r o r t e c h n i c a l . ' 25 Am. J u r . 2d E a s e m e n t s & L i c e n s e s § 99 (2007). Instead, other r e m e d i e s may be u s e d w h e r e m i s u s e o f an e a s e m e n t h a s occurred." Sluyter 154, 158 In v. Hale (Ark. Fireworks P'ship, addition, Saunders, ("Courts them of unless between the the principle 201 Ala. e q u i t y abhor necessary extinguished v. 197, (R.I. 199 trial to See and install unauthorized holder a lock use 78 So. equity 165 (1917 ) enforce law and to justice idea 544 the property Ass'n, the not A.2d at 146; Inc., 463 A.2d and affirming easement the pursuant instead ordering that restrictions across of the easement). that do i n the easement s h o u l d principle the 20 McDonough never f o r m i s u s e and to 160, abhor will t o e x t i n g u i s h an a gate of and Improvement adhere on "courts Frenning, ( n o t i n g the the terms of the g r a n t easement S.W.3d the owner has c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n not the 2 62 the supports Terrace 1983) 325, enforce lightly. Beach that forfeitures, to parties."), Parolisi 51 6, l o n g r e c o g n i z e d , see 321, r i g h t the dominant-estate be 511 , 2007). f o r f e i t u r e s , " w h i c h A l a b a m a has v. 370 i n the easement to grant prevent L i k e w i s e , the f a c t t h a t i t 2101074 appears that perpetrated most of the misuse by t r e s p a s s e r s of t h e easement and v a n d a l s militates has i n favor of a d e c i s i o n not t o f o r f e i t t h e d o m i n a n t - e s t a t e owners' rights i n the easement. 02CA008071, March in N.E.2d) extinguish the See Cleveland patrons Clifford, 13, 2 0 0 3 ) ( O h i o C t . App. 2 0 0 3 ) ( n o t (affirming the an easement trial court's (No. reported decision not to f o r m i s u s e w h e r e i t was a p p a r e n t t h e easement and had, i n f a c t , d i s c o u r a g e d from v i o l a t i n g Parolisi that dominant-estate misuse t h e easement, and the C l e v e l a n d indicates or has a trial owner cases that court has attempted t o no a v a i l ) . should committed t o prevent t h e easement supports the conclusion that the t r i a l regarding should overburdening Parolisi, The 463 A . 2 d a t 1 9 9 ; dominant-estate restaurant be consider the acts them when extinguished court their Cleveland whether amounting to and Parolisi questions the equities rights. supra. owner i n C l e v e l a n d t h a t had been granted the determining respective property Cleveland, 21 Both the facing or misuse should balance the p a r t i e s to preserve restaurant are instructive. whether a property d o m i n a n t - e s t a t e owner, t h e owner o f a r e s t a u r a n t , h a d n o t violated of v. been was t h e o w n e r o f a " d r i v e easement" by t h e 2101074 servient-estate owner. parked i n the area The p a t r o n s of the restaurant often o f t h e d r i v e easement d e s p i t e t h e f a c t the owner not to park not h i m s e l f p a r k e d i n t h e d r i v e easement, t h e c o u r t n o t e d he of the restaurant i n that had informed area. Because restaurant the restaurant had n o t i n t e n t i o n a l l y v i o l a t e d t h e easement. court pointed out that misuse o f t h e easement, other steps could "No owner h a d In spaces Parking" easement 197. the dominant-estate Improvement across Association, Parolisi's owner which property. had was a marking t h a t t h e easement be u s e d f o r i n g r e s s the Beach beach-access Parolisi, The d e e d c o n v e y i n g t h e e a s e m e n t c o n t a i n e d requiring signs around the restaurant. Parolisi, Terrace that to prevent o r p a i n t i n g s i m i l a r m a r k i n g s on t h e g r o u n d o r c l e a r l y parking patrons However, t h e be t a k e n including posting that 463 A . 2 d a t a restriction and egress by t h e A s s o c i a t i o n ' s members o n l y ; t h e d e e d f u r t h e r p r o v i d e d that if would deed Id. at 198. access by: the the r e s t r i c t i o n easement Parolisi was back to objected to violated, the Association servient-estate the use nonmembers o f t h e A s s o c i a t i o n class p u t on b y t h e town's like of the beach children attending recreation 22 owner. department, a swim guests of 2101074 the Association's youngsters who unidentified Id. members, made local themselves the easement had, before easement, was heard police officer The A s s o c i a t i o n across shellfishermen, only posted f o r the use 11 p.m.," and h i s c h i l d this a at "boisterous action, sign and an or children. erected a gate that the members, and indicating of Association e n a c t e d a r u l e t h a t t h e easement c o u l d n o t be u s e d between t h e hours o f 10 p.m. declined to require back t o P a r o l i s i by a n d 6 a.m. and i s s u e accessing trial keys only judgment, "fashioned ... equities." deed i n t h e deed and t o i n s t a l l to Association t h e easement. court's the Association The trial a noting model of that the to abide a lock members I d . The a p p e l l a t e court t h e easement and i n s t e a d ordered t h e A s s o c i a t i o n the restrictions gate that I d . a t 199. court on t h e t o u s e when affirmed the by i t s i n j u n c t i o n i t had Id. Turning back t o the present deciding, that of the without t h e use o f t h e easement a t a l l hours, the use and a s s o c i a t e d case, balancing even assuming, of t h e easement by v e h i c l e s o t h e r noise, proper than g o l f carts, interference with t h e use and enjoyment of t h e s e r v i e n t e s t a t e , and t h e use by t r e s p a s s e r s 23 the trash, and vandals 2101074 overburden trial the servient court erred easement. misuse using and The of evidence t h e easement the Crumplers gave r i s e other easement to limiting or the d i d not was establish committed by prevent like access or to c l e a r l y that that subdivision The to their or that the subdivision may used. In addition, the owners Bradshaws installing issues fencing or properties by demarcate the boundaries the subdivision t o t h e easement t o g o l f owners be clearly litigation, requesting access the h a d t a k e n no s t e p s t o a m e l i o r a t e t h e unauthorized users the we f o r i t s intended purpose. to this barriers are not convinced that to terminate or extinguish i n refusing t h e easement that estate, limit carts or the times the Bradshaws and post of signs subdivision the the easement Crumplers a c t i v e l y prevented t h e improvement o f t h e easement t o p r e v e n t further The "the use erosion. [subdivision] court owners s h a l l properly vandals or troublemakers." decision to deny the requested easement. AFFIRMED. 24 determined that n o t be d e n i e d t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e easement because o f i l l e g a l trespassers, its trial use o f t h e easement T h e r e f o r e , we extinguishment and by affirm of the 2101074 Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 25 Bryan, and Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.