Wilcox Holdings LTD v. Hull

The plaintiff was entitled to an easement across the defendants' property, but the plaintiff could not dictate where the defendants could place their buildings, walkways or parking spaces.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Wilcox Holdings Wilcox appeals from the trial court’s grant of James M. Hull III, Windsor Square, LLC, and Hull Storey Retail Group, LLC’s collectively “Hull” motion for summary judgment on Wilcox’s complaint for equitable relief and damages. Wilcox petitioned for an injunction to prevent Hull from blocking two driveways across Hull’s property and also claimed damages for tortious interference with contract. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. The undisputed evidence in the record shows that Hull owns a tract of land in Windsor Square Shopping Center, Tract C, and Wilcox owns an adjacent tract of land in the shopping center, Tract B. The entrance to the shopping center from Peach Orchard Road lies entirely within Hull’s property, Tract C.1 At the time of this lawsuit, there were two openings from Tract B across Tract C to the entranceway. These driveways were put in by Wilcox in 1981, to give customers of the business located on Tract B a means to enter and exit the shopping center from Peach Orchard Road.

These two adjoining properties are subject to a Declaration that provides for “a permanent mutual reciprocal and non-exclusive easement, license, right and privilege of passage and use, both pedestrian and vehicular, for the purpose of ingress and egress over all roads and driveways and parking upon all parking areas located from time to time upon both Tract B and Tract C. The Declaration also provides that “the owners of Tracts “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”, respectively, shall have the right to relocate buildings, walkways and parking areas in any manner whatsoever, and the easement, license, right and privilege granted by this instrument shall then apply to the areas so established.”

Wilcox Holdings LTD v. Hull

The plaintiff was entitled to an easement across the defendants' property, but the plaintiff could not dictate where the defendants could place their buildings, walkways or parking spaces.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report