Opinion ID: 1656900
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: parking agreement

Text: Vice also contends on appeal that in erecting the fence Leigh deprived him of parking space to which he was entitled. While Vice did pay for the construction of the parking lot to the buildings, Leigh reimbursed him for the portion in front of 3506. Vice had no interest in the 3506 property. The erection of the fence did not impede ingress and egress on the 3502 and 3504 properties, or their respective parking lot areas. There was nothing in writing giving Vice any right, title or interest in and to the parking area in front of the 3506 property. He offered no evidence supporting an easement, actual, implied, or by prescription. Dethlefs v. Beau Maison Development Corp., 511 So.2d 112, 116 (Miss. 1987). All he ever had, if anything, was a revocable license. Logan v. McGee, 320 So.2d 792, 793 (Miss. 1975); Towles v. Hodges, 235 Miss. 258, 108 So.2d 884, 885 (1959). There was no agreement, and nothing about Leigh's or Vice's conduct giving Vice a license coupled with an interest in the parking lot in front of the 3506 property. Anchor Stone & Materials Co. v. Carlin, 436 P.2d 650, 653 (Okla. 1967). The chancellor correctly held that Leigh had the right to erect the fence. We therefore reverse and render the chancellor's judgment holding Vice did not have the right to renew the lease under the agreement, and affirm the chancellor's ruling that Leigh had a right to erect the fence. REVERSED AND RENDERED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART. SULLIVAN, PITTMAN, BANKS, JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr. and SMITH, JJ., concur. DAN M. LEE, P.J., and McRAE, J., concur in result only. PRATHER, P.J., not participating.