No. 94 CVD 207 Appeal by defendants from order entered 29 August 1994 by Judge Samuel L. Osborne in Yadkin County District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 August 1995. Plaintiff filed this declaratory judgment action after defendants refused to allow the installation of underground utility and telephone lines on plaintiff's easement which runs across their property. Defendants acknowledged the existence of the easement, but maintained that it was limited to ingress and egress.
Defendants argue that the trial court erred by increasing the extent and scope of the easement.
Third, if the conveyance is silent as to the scope of the easement, extrinsic evidence is inadmissible as to the scope or extent of the easement. However, in this latter situation, a reasonable use is implied. Here, plaintiff was granted an express easement over Lot Six. In construing the easement to provide for the location, installation, and maintenance of facilities for domestic utilities, the trial court increased the use of the easement and the burden on the servient estate. Had the grantors intended a greater use, such use should have been specified.