All Content

Posted by: Landry Butler on Sep 28, 2016

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1:

Mark S. Dugger, Elizabethton, Tennessee, for the appellant, Charlotte Cornwell.

Attorneys 2:

Rick J. Bearfield, Johnson City, Tennessee, for the appellees, Dwight Douglas and Keela Douglas.

Judge(s): CLEMENT

At issue is whether an easement for ingress and egress exists. Plaintiffs commenced this action to enjoin the adjacent property owner from using Plaintiffs’ driveway for ingress and egress. Defendant filed a counterclaim asserting that she had an easement by implication; alternatively, she claimed Plaintiffs purchased the property subject to an easement because the easement was apparent upon inspection. The dispositive issue concerning the alleged easement by implication is whether the easement is essential to Defendant’s beneficial enjoyment of her property. The trial court found that Defendant failed to establish that she would incur an unreasonable expenditure to create another means of ingress and egress to her property; therefore, the easement was not a necessity. The court also found that the claimed easement was not apparent upon inspection. Accordingly, the court enjoined Defendant from using the driveway for ingress and egress. We affirm.