![ingress and regress ingress and regress](https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.608130746.2819/fmp,x_small,gloss,wall_texture,product,750x1000.u9.jpg)
The trial court granted partial summary judgment on this issue. The Greenwoods took and have maintained the position that the easement was more general in nature and permitted them three things in addition to a simple means of ingress and egress: (1) the right to construct and lay utility lines to their property over and across the Clanton property, (2) a means of ingress and egress that is unobstructed by locked gates, and (3) the right to improve and widen the access road so as to encompass the entirety of the forty-five feet included in the creation of the express easement.Ĭlanton moved for partial summary judgment that the easement was limited in purpose to a means of ingress and egress only from the Greenwoods' property to Steep Hollow Road. The Greenwoods answered and filed a counterclaim seeking declaratory relief of their own on issues concerning widening and improvement of the road and obstruction of the easement by locking gates. Clanton sued, seeking declaratory relief to the effect that the easement was so limited. Clanton resisted their efforts, asserting that the easement was limited to a means of ingress and egress only per the express terms of the easement. The Greenwoods decided to build a residence on their land and, in furtherance of that development, sought to run utility lines along the easement burdening the Clanton property. 1 The Greenwoods' property is landlocked and connected to Steep Hollow Road, a public road, by means of an “asement and right-of-way” over Clanton's property. In rural Brazos County, Clanton owns a ten-acre tract of land which she uses for residential and ranching purposes, and the Greenwoods own a neighboring forty-acre tract they purchased in 2009.
![ingress and regress ingress and regress](https://grid.gograph.com/egress-ingress-regress-concept-stock-illustration_gg82809808.jpg)
We will affirm in part and reverse and remand in part. The Greenwoods challenge the trial court's narrow interpretation of the express easement and the limitations on their rights to use the easement. Clanton.Īppellants, Kyle and Beverly Greenwood, defendants and counterplaintiffs below, appeal the trial court's summary judgment which declared the scope of an easement and respective rights of the Greenwoods as owners of the dominant estate and neighboring servient estate owner, Martha Lee (now known as Martha Clanton), plaintiff and counterdefendant below. Decided: September 28, 2012īefore CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.