Opinion ID: 2351632
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Chimney Flue Vent Issue

Text: Appellants argue that their property ripened into a prescriptive easement for perpetual and complete physical access to the chimney flue located on [appellee's] property and their access to the flue was wrongfully cut off by appellee. They also maintain that an access easement [to the chimney flue was created] by express grant as reflected in a written contract, and that their access to the chimney flue has been blocked. Appellees contend that the chimney flue issue was resolved by agreement of the parties and that, at any rate, appellants have [not] been deprived of the service of the chimney flue pipe by Stiglitz's addition [to his property]. They argue that [n]either the language of the express grant for joint service nor common sense implies that the Hefazis must have an unlimited right of `perpetual and complete physical access to the chimney flue.' The record contains a document entitled basement easement signed on September 29, 2000 by the Pevas, purchasers of the 2803 Que Street property from the Hefazis. By that basement easement, the Pevas grant[ed] and encumber [ed] [the 2803 Que Street property] with an easement for the benefit of the owners of [the 1600 28th Street property], and their respective successors, heirs and assigns for the purpose of permanently keeping the said vent [that is, the chimney flue vent] as joint service to [both properties]. The document does not mention physical access to the chimney flue. In addition, the record supports Mr. Stiglitz' position that the chimney flue issue was resolved by agreement of the parties when both the Hefazis and Mr. Stiglitz agreed to pay for work on the basement boiler and water heater vent. Mr. Stiglitz'Statement of Material Facts as to which There is No Genuine Issue contains two paragraphs relevant to the chimney flue vent: 2. A single chimney flue served as a vent from the furnaces in the basements in both the Hefazi and Stiglitz houses. The chimney flue, which is marked by a small circle adjacent to the common wall on the property survey, is located on the Stiglitz property running vertically up the party wall.... 6. The parties have reached an agreement with regard to the chimney flue, in which they agreed to modify and modernize the flue and share the cost of these improvements. The work has now been completed. See the letter of Plaintiff's attorney, dated November 1, 2002, attached to the invoice of John C. Flood, Inc., and the Flood company's release of Defendant.... The letter from the Hefazis' attorney confirm[ed] that the chimney flue work has been completed ...[,] and requested payment of $3,200.00 from Mr. Stiglitz. [7] The Flood company documents were attached to the letter. In light of these record documents supporting Mr. Stiglitz' statement of undisputed material facts, which the trial court undoubtedly considered, and in the absence of any counter statement filed by the Hefazis in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, judgment as a matter of law on the chimney flue vent issue was proper. Indeed, in their reply brief, the Hefazis acknowledge that [t]he Defendant was finally persuaded to authorize the repair, and the Plaintiffs paid the agreed one-third of the cost. Their further assertion that [a]t no time did the Plaintiffs agree to the enclosure of the chimney flue, is of no moment because the basement easement that was granted to them by the Pevas did not purport to prohibit the enclosure of the chimney flue. It is undisputed that the chimney flue continues to provide service to appellants' property, and no facts of record show that they have been denied access to it. [8]