Court Opinion

ID: 9654866
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:53:24.962341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:14.267899
License: Public Domain

NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, Judge,
Concurring.
I concur in the result only in the section designated Cross-Appeal Points I & II-*732Deed Reformation in the majority opinion. I agree with Respondents that a case for reformation was not proven, but I do not agree with Van Elk that reformation was not ordered. Van Elk alleged that the warranty deed reserved in favor of Van Elk an unobstructed and nonexclusive easement of ingress and egress fifty-feet wide; he requested an injunction protecting that easement; and the injunction was granted. The trial court granted Van Elk’s petition for injunction and ejectment and that order was not appealed; therefore, we do not have to reach the issue of whether the deed was reformed. In all other respects, I concur with the majority opinion.