Green v. Lupo pg. 396
Author: Lynn

Facts: The Green’s brought this lawsuit after the defendant stopped letting them use a driveway/road that led to their land.  The plaintiff’s sold the defendant a parcel of land and requested an easement in writing.  The plaintiffs then developed a piece of their land into mobile home lots.  The owners of the mobile homes were riding their motorcycles on the easements in a rowdy fashion and the defendant became upset.  They did not want to let the other owners of the land to use the easement.

Procedure: The trial court determined that the easement was personal to only the plaintiffs and they appealed.

Issue: Whether or not the easement was personal or appurtenant to the land.

Holding: It was appurtenant to the land.

Reasoning:  The easement specifically granted egress and ingress and utilities purposes on the road to the Greens.  Because the written easement did not specifically state it to be personal parole evidence can be admitted to determine the intent of the parties.  Once this parole evidence was admitted it was found that the easement was for the benefit of the land.  Because of this it is to be passed on to each owner.

Decision: Reversed and remanded to give the Plaintiffs an easement to egress and ingress but with restrictions to assure the easement is not used in a way that will become a dangerous nuisance to defendants.