Opinion ID: 1908116
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Parking on the Parking Pad

Text: We agree with the trial court that the unambiguous language of the easement prohibits parking in the easement as outside the right of ingress and egress. See id. We note, however, that, by its terms, the order addresses only that part of the easement which is owned by Hodsonthe only interpretation consistent with the trial court's statement that [Hodson] owns the `servient estate' and the [Steinkamps and Xenakises] share the `dominant estate.' So interpreted, the order is responsive to Hodson's amended complaint, which seeks relief regarding a controversy over the driveway portion of [Hodson's] Lot 129. We therefore conclude that the injunction issued by the trial court refers exclusively to that twenty-foot-wide portion of the easement which is comprised of Hodson's lot 129. At oral argument, Steinkamp insisted that when his car is parked on his parking pad, its rear bumper protrudes only into that part of the easement comprised of a two-foot swath derived from his own lotnot the twenty feet of the easement which belong to Hodson's lot 129. Steinkamp answered affirmatively when asked by the appellate panel whether a clarification that the trial court's order covered only the Hodson's twenty feet would resolve the issue of whether or not parking on his parking pad violates the injunction created by the order. On that same question, while asserting the opposite position that the Steinkamps' parked car in fact protrudes into the twenty feet of the easement contributed by Hodson's lot 129, counsel for Hodson conceded at oral argument that if the bumper of the Steinkamps' parked car did not protrude into that part of the easement comprised of lot 129, but remained in the Steinkamps' lot subject to the easement, that may be a technical violation of the easement, but it is not the issue that was brought before the court. In sum, under the trial court's injunction as we have interpreted it to apply only to lot 129, the Steinkamps are under no threat of a finding of contempt under the injunction if their car, when parked, does not intrude into the boundaries of lot 129 owned by Hodson that is part of the easement. We do not, of course, address the actual facts of the situation.