Gary Knight owns Lot 14 in Phase 2 of the Toccoa Heights subdivision in Fannin County, and Daryle and Rebecca Higginbotham own several adjacent lots in the same subdivision. Knight claims that he has an easement across the Higginbothams’ lots, and he brought this suit against the Higginbothams and the developers of the subdivision, seeking a declaratory judgment as to the easement and injunctive relief to protect his right to use the easement from nuisance and other interference. Both Knight and the Higginbothams moved for summary judgment, and after concluding that Knight does, in fact, have an easement across the Higginbothams’ lots, the court below awarded partial summary judgment to Knight on his claim for declaratory relief and denied summary judgment to the Higginbothams, who now appeal from both rulings. We find that the relevant agreements, deeds, and plats are ambiguous about whether Knight has an easement across the Higginbothams’ land and that this ambiguity cannot be resolved at summary judgment but, instead, must be resolved by a trial. Accordingly, we reverse the award of partial summary judgment to Knight, and we affirm the denial of summary judgment to the Higginbothams.1 Summary judgment is warranted when the material facts, as shown by the pleadings and record evidence, are undisputed and these facts entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. See OCGA § 9-11-56 c. We review de novo the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment. See Cowart v. Widener , 287 Ga. 622, 624 1 a 697 SE2d 779 2010 grant of motion for summary judgment; Hood v. Todd , 287 Ga. 164, 165 695 SE2d 31 2010 denial of motion for summary judgment. And we review the record evidence on appeal in the same way as the court below, that is, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Merlino v. City of Atlanta , 283 Ga. 186 657 SE2d 859 2008.
The record shows that in May 2003, the Higginbothams purchased three adjacent lots in the Toccoa Heights subdivision: Lots 13, 18, and 19. The parties do not dispute that all of the owners of lots in the subdivision are bound by a road easement agreement that the developers recorded in 2001. This agreement “grants an easement along the road system within the boundaries of the subdivision for ingress and egress to each Purchaser, their heirs, and assigns, of lots or property within the subdivision,” but the agreement does not identify by name, description, definition, or otherwise the specific pathways that constitute the “road system.” The recorded plats for the subdivision depict at least three kinds of pathways that arguably might be considered part of this “road system.” First, the plats depict three pathways that are designated as a “road” —Toccoa Heights Road, Fish Trap Road, and River Heights Road —with a width of 18 feet. Second, the plats show several “access drives” that are 12 feet wide. Finally, the plats depict numerous other “drives,” all of which are 10 feet in width.
