Opinion ID: 2572503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: reasonableness of use

Text: As stated above, an increase in the use of a general easement must be reasonable and not unduly burdensome to the servient estate. In the present case, the McFaddens produced evidence in support of their motion for summary judgment that increased use of the easement would be reasonable and consistent with the normal development of the land. Specifically, the McFaddens submitted as evidence the Findings of Fact made by the Commissioners, who found the geographic area surrounding Parcel No. 4 had experienced significant residential development since the 1995 easement agreement and subdividing Parcel No. 4 would be consistent with this residential development. [1] Additionally, the Commissioners found the increased use of the easement across Sein's property would not be an unreasonable burden on the servient estate. On the other hand, Sein presented no evidence to controvert these Findings. Significantly, Sein produced no evidence to show the increased use of the easement across their property would result in an unreasonable burden to them or that the proposed development was beyond the normal development of the land to be expected. They relied instead on their argument that the increase in use of the easement was specifically prohibited by the Survey attached to the easement agreement, showing an undivided Parcel No. 4. They submitted no evidence on summary judgment except the easement agreement itself and attachments. Consequently, the trial court had only the uncontroverted evidence produced by the McFaddens demonstrating that the use was reasonable, and properly granted summary judgment for the McFaddens.