1. Who owns the dominant easement estate?

2. Who owns the servient easement estate?

3. Explain the precedent on easement barriers and the court’s requirements for proof of unreasonable interference with an easement owner’s rights.

Adrian and Charline Wingate (Appellees) own and occupy a home adjoining Gloria Dianne and Freddie L. Wingate’s (Appellants) property. On February 1, 1999, Appellant Freddie L. Wingate and his (now deceased) wife, Peggy Ann Wingate (now Peggy Dianne), granted an easement over and across their property, providing ingress and egress to Adrian and Charline, which was recorded. Around October 21, 2009, Freddie and Peggy placed speed bumps across a paved portion of the easement, which is used by Adrian and Charline to gain access to their residence. Freddie and Peggy also placed concrete barriers on either side of the speed bumps to prevent vehicles from going around the speed bumps. The speed bumps have proven dangerous to drivers and their passengers and have damaged vehicles passing over them. Adrian and Charline demanded summary judgment as well as a permanent injunction restraining Freddie and Peggy from keeping the speed bumps across the easement. The court granted summary judgment and ordered the removal of the speed bumps. Peggy and Freddie appealed.

JUDICIAL OPINION

RAY, Judge … Appellants asserted that the passageway sustained heavy traffic, some motorists used excessive speed, and over time, the posted speed limit signs were regularly ignored and ineffective. Appellants deny that the speed bumps are dangerous and/or substantially diminish Appellees’ rights. Under the terms of the easement, the grantors gave, granted, sold, and conveyed to Appellees, as grantees, “a nonexclusive easement or right of way for ingress and egress, over, along, and across a strip or parcel of land,” which is legally described in the agreement. The agreement contained no restrictions and reserved no rights to place speed bumps across the easement. Appellees requested the immediate removal of the speed bumps.

Appellees’ counsel argued the speed bumps must be removed because, by their very nature, they impede ingress and egress along the easement, have no reflectors or other warning signs, and substantially diminish Appellees’ rights established under the easement agreement. Appellees contended that the placement of a fence along the passageway would be a less intrusive means of protecting people from vehicles crossing the easement, without impeding ingress and egress along the passageway.

Appellants’ counsel replied that the speed bumps serve a necessary safety function to reduce speeding and are permitted if they do not unreasonably interfere with the ability to cross over the easement. The trial judge, acknowledging that a factual question may arise as to whether the speed bumps are a substantial interference, found it was not reasonable to place the speed bumps across the easement, where the agreement expressly granted Appellees the rights of ingress and egress. The court noted that the presence of large concrete blocks on both sides of the speed bumps prevents drivers from bypassing them. Although an easement is a real property interest in land, it is a right distinct from ownership of the land itself and does not confer title to the land on which the easement is imposed. The easement holder possesses the dominant tenement, while the owner of the land against which the easement exists possesses the servient tenement. The servient estate owner enjoys all rights to the property, except as limited by the easement, and may use the land burdened by the easement in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the lawful dominant use.

In the case before us, the parties agree that a valid easement was created and recorded in 1999. The clear, unambiguous language in the agreement gave the dominant estate owners (Appellees) a non-exclusive right-of-way for ingress and egress over and along the parcel of land that is used to access their residence. ……………………