Opinion ID: 1888053
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of Crystal's Trespass Claim

Text: Crystal argues that the trial judge erroneously allowed Reserves to continue using a construction entrance across Lot 6 of Crystal's lands. Crystal further contends that it considered Reserves' use of the construction entrance temporary, when Crystal purchased the land, and that Reserves' continued use constitutes a trespass. Crystal's arguments are unpersuasive. First, Crystal knew that Reserves used Lot 6 as a construction entrance when they purchased Lot 6. Second, Reserves' predecessors recorded conveyances reflecting the right of way. Third, the recorded conveyance included Lot 6 and a declaration of restrictions that referred to earlier easements and rights of way on the property. The trial judge correctly stated that Crystal's injury was self inflicted by their knowledge and failure to pay the expenses to develop the project to eliminate the need for access, [21] and he properly denied Crystal's trespass claims.