Morris v. Byrd

The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the plaintiff on her claim for an express easement over the defendant's property, because the express easement at issue was too indefinite to be enforced.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Sheila Morris appeals from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Lois Byrd on Byrd’s claim for an express easement over Morris’s property. Morris asserts that the trial court erred because the express easement at issue is too indefinite to be enforced. We agree and therefore reverse.

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9 11 56 c. We review a grant or denial of summary judgment de novo and construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Home Builders Assn. of Savannah v. Chatham County, 276 Ga. 243, 245 1 577 SE2d 564 2003. So viewed, the record shows that Byrd relied solely upon the following language in a deed given by her to Morris’s father and predecessor in title, Kenneth Trowell, to prove the express easement: Grantor herein reserves a right of ingress and egress over, in and to the above-described property. Following a hearing in which it received evidence on the issue, the trial court issued an order granting Bryd’s motion for summary judgment as to the theory of express easement only. It found that the easement applied to a certain road over land owned by Morris when Byrd conveyed said land to Morris’s father, that this road was identifiable and had been in use since the 1930s, that the location of the road was known to both parties, and that it began where a gate was located. Based upon these conclusions, the trial court ordered Byrd to pay for a surveyor to prepare a plat for the location of the road, which the court deemed to be 20 feet in width.

Morris v. Byrd

The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the plaintiff on her claim for an express easement over the defendant's property, because the express easement at issue was too indefinite to be enforced.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report